2004 (8) TMI 213

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ore, the stay application of the appellants is allowed. 3. In my view, the appeal itself can be disposed of as the facts are not in dispute. 4. The appellants claimed abatement of duty for the period 31-12-99 to 30-1-2000, 24-2-2000 to 29-2-2000 and 1-3-2000 to 12-2-2000 as their factory remained closed during this period. The adjudicating authority itself in Para 3.8 of the impugned order has .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ey had complied with the provisions of Rule 96ZO(2), the appellants are entitled to the abatement of duty for the full period as claimed by them in their abatement claim application. 5. In the light of the discussions made above, the impugned order confirming the demand of Rs. 34,224/- and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellants and equal amount of penalty under Rule 96ZO(3)(ii) of the Rules is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X