TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Revenue questioning the order of the CESTAT, Chennai Bench, in allowing the appeal filed by -the assessee by following the decision of the Bombay High Court in Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (2005) 183 E.L.T. 351. However, when the appeal was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant, viz., the Revenue, was present and argued. There was no appearance for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, certain vital factors were not brought to the notice of this Court. According to Mr. Jayachandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the assessee is entitled to pay excise duty on monthly basis, which factor was not brought before this Court. Secondly, for payment of such excise duty, a notice dated 29-6-2005 was issued and on the basis of the said notice, the assessee had paid the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated payment, the Bombay High Court has observed penalty for ₹ 5,000/- only. 4. We have considered the above submission and heard Mr. T. Chandrasekar, learned counsel for the respondent. The respondent has not controverted the above submission by filing a counter-affidavit. 5. The order which is sought to be reviewed was passed by us on the premise, that the assessee had failed to pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
