9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as under: 3. The appellants were manufacturer of leather garments falling under TI 68 of the Erstwhile Tariff and exempted under Notification No. 234/82-CE, dated 1-11-1982. But this notification was rescinded w.e.f. 1-3-1986 and the garments were thereafter classifiable under sub-heading 4201.90 of the new Tariff. The appellants, however, continued to clear the goods without payment of duty without having licence and without following the procedure under the Act and Rules during the period 1-3-1986 to 16-11-1986. They were accordingly issued show cause notice dated 3-3-1989 requiring them to pay duty amount of Rs. 16,80,781.36 (larter on calculation was reduced to Rs. 14,76,495/-). The penalty was also proposed to be imposed on them unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ropping the duty demand against them under the law and as such the impugned order of the Commissioner in this regard deserves to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, the learned JDR while refuting this contention of the counsel has argued that provisions of Rule 173-Q are mandatory and imposition of penalty was must on the appellants when they faulted in making compliance with the provisions of Rule 174 and of the rules of Chapter IX. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner is perfectly valid. 7. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record. 8. No doubt, the Commissioner had dropped the duty demand against the appellants on the ground of limitation by holding that the demand was time barred and that the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , registered person/dealer removes any excisable goods in contravention of any of the provisions of the Rules or contravenes any of the provisions of these Rules with an intent to evade payment of duty, he shall be liable to penalty not exceeding three times the value of the excisable goods in respect of which any contravention has been committed. Therefore, on finding that the appellants had committed violation of the provisions of Rule 174 and of the rules of Chapter IX of the Central Excise Rules, the impugned order of the Commissioner imposing penalty on the appellants, cannot be in any manner said to be illegal and unjustified under the law. Rather it is perfectly valid and legal order. The ratio of the law laid down in Arora Internati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
