9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. The impugned order is challenged by which duty demand of Rs. 5,15,529/- has been confirmed under Rule 9(2) read with sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has also been imposed on the appellants under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, under the same order. 2. The appellants are manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tinued by another Notification No. 57/93, dated 20-3-1993. The period in dispute is 1991-92 and 1992-93. However, the then Collector (now Commissioner) overruled their contention that there is no manufacturing activity and held that the recording done by the appellants on the magnetic tape in the pan cake form constitute manufacture and they are liable to duty. He has examined the Notification No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... read as 87/89, dated 1-3-1989. The learned Counsel submits that such corrigendum is not legal and proper for the reason that Notification No. 87/89, dated 1-3-1989 was never considered and what was considered was only Notification No. 74/90, dated 20-3-1990 and therefore, it cannot be considered as corrigendum and as such the impugned order vitiates on this ground itself. He further pointed out th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the corrigendum, issued can be said to be in order. He further submitted that the demands are not barred by time as the appellants have cleared the goods without payment of duty. 5. In counter the learned Counsel submitted that the notification itself shows that both the notifications are independently worded. Corrigendum issued is not sustainable as the notifications are not pari materia. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the matter remanded to the Commissioner to reconsider the plea that Notification No. 83/87 applies to the facts of the present case and the Commissioner has to decide the case on merits. We are not recording any finding on merits. The aspect pertaining to time bar shall also be re-considered by him after granting opportunity of hearing to the appellants in terms of law. Thus the appeal is allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
