TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order]. In this appeal the appellants have challenged the validity of the impugned order-in-original vide which penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 173Q has been imposed while rejecting the prayer of the appellants for paying the duty under the compounded levy scheme. 2. The learned Counsel has contended that even if the appellants are taken to be not entitled to the benefit of Notificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endent Textile Processors, engaged in the manufacture of specified processed textile fabrics. They also paid the duty under the said Scheme as detailed by them in the reply to the show cause notice. They even alleged that they had paid excess duty and claimed refund of Rs. 6,37,593.88 as detailed by them in the annexure C, to their reply. But the Commissioner has not at all considered this plea of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntitled to the compounded levy scheme benefit, did not warrant the invokation of Rule 173Q against them for imposition of penalty when the entire duty had already been paid by them. Therefore, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order cannot be legally maintained and is set aside. 4. Consequently the impugned order of the Commissioner of Central Excise is se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
