9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22-6-1993 to 28-7-1993 besides imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/-, in respect of Industrial coolers classifiable under tariff Heading 84.19 of the CETA, on the appellants. 2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of industrial coolers falling under Chapter 84 of the CETA. They filed the classification list with effect from 2-3-1993 in respect of that product and parts thereof, but claimed the benefit of Notification No. 155/86, dated 1-3-1986 and paid duty at the concessional rate of 15% adv. during the period 2-3-1992 to 22-4-1993. Thereafter, when this Notification No. 155/86 was superseded by second subsequent Notification No. 51/93, dated 28-2-1993, the appellants continued to pay the duty at the concessional rate, although the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecord. 5. The facts are not much in dispute. The product of the appellants i.e., industrial cooler was classifiable under Tariff Heading 84.19 of the CETA and the duty payable thereon was full. However, through Notification No. 155/86, dated 1-3-1986 concessional rate of duty was allowed on the goods covered by Tariff Heading 84.19 and the concessional duty provided was at the rate of 15% adv. But this Notification as not disputed before us by the ld. Counsel, was superseded through another Notification No. 51/93, dated 28-2-1993 and the goods falling under Tariff Heading 84.19 were taken out of the purview of the earlier Notification referred to above. No doubt, subsequently another Notification No. 83/93, dated 23-4-1993 was issued wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. Therefore, the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) in this regard is upheld. 7. The ld. Counsel has however contended that the penalty amount should be accordingly reduced as the duty amount had been deposited by the appellants much prior to the issuance of show cause notice. Therefore, keeping in view this aspect and other facts and circumstances of the case, we accept the prayer of the Counsel and reduce the penalty to Rs. 10,000/- ld. Counsel has further however, stated that the differential duty amount for the period 28-2-1993 to 22-4-1993 had already been also deposited under protest by the appellant and the same be ordered to be refunded, but in this appeal we can not legally order the refund of that amount. It will be for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
