TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (T)]. - The respondent is not represented in spite of notice for today s hearing. The Department is represented by the DR. Therefore, we are proceeding to decide the appeal on merits. 2. This is an appeal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 5-6-2004 by which the penalty amount of Rs. 18,78,800/- imposed by the Original Authority was reduced to Rs. 75,000/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 75,000/-. He has relied on various precedent judgments including the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, 1978 (2) E.L.T. J159 (S.C.), to reduce the penalty. 4. Learned DR submits that the Rule 96 ZP(3) makes it clear that in the event of delay in payment of duty determined under Compounded Levy Scheme, penalty equal to the amount of duty, whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d at by following the ratio of the law laid down by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Parmeshwar Dyeing Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2005 (191) E.L.T. 86. 6. In the present case, admittedly, there was delay in payment of duty payable under the Compounded Levy Scheme. The entire duty along with interest stands paid. The delay in payment warrants penalty, however, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
