9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent. [Order]. - These two appeals by the department arise out of a common order in appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 11 & 12/10 (M-IV) dated 19-3-2010. 2. Heard both sides. 3.1 The relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondents were found to have cleared the goods in excess of Rs. One crore in value during the period from April' 06 to 18-1-07. The respondents to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the respondents paid 25% of the penalty amount on the 31st day and therefore, they were not eligible for the concessional penalty of 25% and therefore they ought to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00139/- and accordingly, he adjusted the refunded amount of Rs. 8,432/- towards the penalty due from the respondents. The respondents filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging penalty in excess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receipt of the order i.e. 30-9-08 should be excluded for computing the period of 30 days and in which case the penalty stands paid on 30th day. 5.2 As regards the plea of unjust enrichment by the department, he submits that the payments made during the investigations were only deposits and the original authority confirmed the demand of duty and interest which are lower than the amounts depos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from which such period is to be reckoned, shall be excluded." A reading of the above clearly supports the submission of the Ld. Advocate for the respondents that the date of receipt of the order deserves to be excluded. Once this view is taken, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) does not suffer from any infirmity on this ground. Therefore, the penalty of Rs. 66,713/- paid on 30-10-08 is in c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
