9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (4) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the financial year 1983-84, availing benefit of the exemption under Notification No. 83/83. This notification provided full exemption upto the clearances of the value of Rs. 7.5 lakhs and exemption of duty in excess of 75% of the duty payable for the next clearances of the value of Rs. 17.5 lakhs. The notification also prescribed that the benefit of exemption will not be available if the previous year s clearances had exceeded Rs. 25 lakhs in value or if current year s clearances exceed Rs. 25 lakhs in value. The requirement under the notification was that the manufacturer should file a declaration with the Assistant Collector that the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods by him or on his behalf from one or more factories du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... full duty from the buyers. The notice also alleged deliberate and wilful mis-statement in the declaration that the total clearances was not likely to exceed rupees twenty-five lakhs in value. On the basis of these allegations the notice proposed demand of duty on all the clearances and imposition of penalty. Appellant resisted the notice. However, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. This order is now being challenged. 3. At the outset, the Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is prepared to pay the duty demanded and therefore, the legality or otherwise of the duty demand need not be considered by us. Appellant s submission is confi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1-9-1983 onwards, that by that time the appellant had an apprehension that there may be possibility of the total clearances marginally exceeding Rs. 25 lakhs in the financial year, in which case the Department may demand duty from the appellant and after the expiry of the financial year it will be impossible for the appellant to collect duty from the buyers and therefore, as a provisional measure and by way of abundant caution duty was being collected a few months after the commencement of the financial year. The grievance of the appellant is that the adjudicating authority did not properly appreciate these contentions. Shri M. Ali, JDR rebutted these contentions and contended that the very fact that the appellant was collecting duty in sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
