9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (3) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these goods upto 9-2-1987 without taking out a Central Excise license and without payment of duty thereon. Shri Uday Singh, the Director of the appellants in a statement on 30-6-1987, said that they had been manufacturing the goods since May, 1986. They import Mono Ethylene Glycol from Japan which is their main raw material. He informed the officers that they had obtained a Small Scale Industries Certificate, but had not taken out the Central Excise license. The officers found, on the basis of value of clearances of the appellants from the financial year 1986-87 to 1987-88 that the appellants should have paid Central Excise duty @ 5% and which would come to Rs. 5,16,363.21. This demand was computed after considering the eligibility of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Singh, ld. S.D.R., who reiterated the reasoning in the Commissioner s order and pointed out that, admittedly, the appellants have never taken out the Central Excise license and also there is no evidence of the receipt of their letters which they claim to have sent to the department seeking clarification. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides, herein. It is not disputed that the product manufactured by the appellants is excisable under Chapter 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants had to take out a Central Excise licence and pay duty on the clearances exceeding exemption limit as a Small Scale Industries Unit under Notification No. 175/86. Therefore, the duty demand on the appellants is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntly when the proceedings had already been initiated on 20-7-1987. The department can take this declaration for the purpose of the procedural requirements under the modvat scheme in the peculiar facts of this case. It is also borne in mind, in this context, that the Tribunal in similar situations had extended such benefit to the appellants in some of its decisions. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of by upholding the duty demand and directing the Commissioner to consider the claim of the appellants for Modvat credit on their input in the above terms. We also are of the view that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the quantum of penalty needs to be reduced. We, accordingly, reduce the penalty to Rs. 10,000.00. The appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
