2005 (2) TMI 396

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Cochin, who in the impugned order upheld the penalty of Rs. 1,52,274/- under Rule 96ZB(3). 2. Briefly the facts are that the annual capacity was provisionally determined by the Commissioner vide his orders dated 25-9-1997 and 29-9-1998. The appellant disputed the provisional determination. Finally, in the order dated 15-2-2001 (No. V/72/30/80/97), the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 687] wherein the Tribunal held that when the determination of annual capacity is under dispute and the final duty has been paid only after the dispute is settled, no penalty is imposable. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the case law. We find that in spite of a provisional determination order, the appellants chose to pay duty on the basis of the actual production. Und .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X