9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 98. On scrutiny of the records maintained by the party and the statement dt. 20-3-98 recorded from Shri D.R. Bhatia, Manager of the party, it was learnt that during the period 1994-95 to 1996-97, they had cleared 64.935 M.Ts of M.S. scrap valued at Rs. 1,88,763.00 without payment of duty amounting to Rs. 37,756.00. On being pointed out, the party voluntarily debited this amount in their PLA vide Entry No. 130, dated 20-3-98 and Entry No. 132, dated 23-3-1998. They were however issued a show cause notice dt. 14-5-1999 by the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh-II, in which they were called upon to show cause why aforestated amount voluntarily debited by them should not be considered as duty recovered under the prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period 1994-95, 1995--96 & 1996-97. Under the law there is no doubt regarding dutiability of M.S. Scrap falling under sub heading No. 7204.90. By not accounting for, not filing the classification list/declaration and removing the goods without payment of duty the appellants contravened the provisions of Central Excise Rules. As per provisions of Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules penalty equivalent to three times of the value of goods can be imposed. Penalty is justified as per provisions of Rule 173Q read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 as the suppression of facts continued for a long period. Interest under Section 11AB of the Act is also applicable for the period as held in the adjudication order in view of the contravent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir factory premises. On these facts, therefore, it is pleaded that since the Central Excise Authorities were well within the knowledge of the fact that the M.S. scrap generated during the course of manufacture of their end products, no allegation of suppression or mis-statement etc. can be alleged against them and on that ground, the demand of duty made against them is time-barred. Shri Ashok Mehta, SDR on the contrary reiterates the findings of the lower authorities and pleads that since the appellants never declared in the Classification Lists filed by them about the manufacture and sale of M.S. scrap under consideration, the invokation of the provisions of extended period for the purpose of demand of duty under Section 11A has rightly be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
