TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 592X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccountant, for the Respondent. [Order]. Heard both sides. The respondents defaulted payment of Compounded Levy amount for Rs. 1,68,650/- for the period 1-2-1999 to 31-3-1999 and Rs. 75,521/- for the period 10-8-1999 to 31-3-2000. The amounts have been ultimately paid after long delay on 1-7-2004. Shri S.K. Jawalkar, Accountant of the respondent company submits that no interest payment fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... V.B. Nair, learned JDR appearing for the department, states in reply that the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Pee Aar Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut - 2004 (170) E.L.T. 406 (All) has upheld the penalty provision under Rule 96ZP(3) and has further held that penalty under the said rule is not a maximum penalty but the only penalty and that such penalty is to be imposed equal to amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in compounded levy cases cannot be followed in the light of the cited decision of the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Pee Aar Steels (cited supra) holding that such penalty is imposable and that the Tribunal is not competent to reduce the penalty. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and restore the Order-in-Original in so far as it relates to the present respondents. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
