2004 (11) TMI 224

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... idity of the impugned order vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has quashed the penalty on the respondents, imposed under Rule 96ZP(3) in toto. 2. Admittedly, the duty liability under the above said rule was not discharged by the respondents and they were served with a show cause notice for payment of the duty for the period April, 1998 to June 1998. Duty earlier deposited by them was Rs. 2,77 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he learned Commissioner (Appeals). That being so, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard cannot be sustained and requires modification keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the entire duty had already been paid by the respondents and that the validity of the Compounded Levy Scheme itself remained under debate before the Apex Court, the p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X