9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. The present appeal is against the Order passed by the Aditional Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Bhubaneswar, vide which he has confirmed the duty amount of Rs. 3,10,029.63 on the goods cleared during the period from 1-4-1990 to 29-12-1990, on the ground that the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. dated 1-3-198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was to be filled in the said Metal Containers would not take them out of the purview of amended Notification No. 175/86. He submits that subsequently, clarifications were issued by the Board and based upon the said clarifications, their jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities have accepted the position and have granted them the benefit of the said Notification No. 175/86 for the subsequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove by both sides, we hold that the appellants were, during the relevant time, entitled to the benefit of small-scale exemption Notification No. 175/86-C.E. as amended, and set aside the demand of duty of Rs. 3,10,029.63. 5. As regards the duty of Rs. 88,666.00 confirmed on the Tin Containers removed clandestinely, Shri Khaitan submits that the said quantum of duty has been calculated wrongly in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate. Accordingly, we set aside this portion of the impugned Order confirming demand of duty of Rs. 88,666.00 and imposing personal penalty of Rs. 40,000.00 and remand the matter to the original adjudicating for re-calculation of the quantum of duty on 16,283 numbers of Tin Containers by applying the appropriate rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 175/83-C.E. and by calculating on the re-dete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
