9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 691X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RDER Per: Anil Choudhary The appellant have filed the present appeal for the financial year 1998-99, challenging the Order-in-Appeal, confirming duty along with interest @ 18% per annum and imposition of penalty of Rs. 47,02,762/- under Rule 96-Z0 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was a registered dealer and engaged in manufacture of M.S. ingot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er vide Order-in-Original dated 06/04/2000. The appellant was required to discharge their duty liability in two equal installments, 1st installment to be paid by 15th day of each month and the 2nd installment latest by last day of each month and the amounts paid were deemed to be full and final discharge of duty liability for the period. 4. According to the appellant the amount payable for the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Rule 96-ZO was proposed. Vide ex-parte Order-in-Original the proposed demands were confirmed. Being aggrieved, the appellant had preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order was pleased to reject the appeal and confirmed the demand and penalty, along with interest. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
