9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 762X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. Vide the impugned Order, the authorities below have confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 15,435.00 (Rupees fifteen thousand four hundred thirty-five) on the ground that during the period from 22-7-1993 to 2-12-1993, the benefit of exemption Notification No. 1/93 was not available to copper alloy articles falling under sub-heading 7403.29. Penalty of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer. In these circumstances, argues the learned Consultant, the extended period of limitation was not available to the Revenue. 3. He also submits that the imposition of personal penalty to the extent of 100% under the provisions of Section 11AC was neither justified nor warranted inasmuch as the said provisions were not in existence during the period to which the alleged short payment relates. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issions made from both sides, we find that the appellants have not disputed that the copper alloy articles were not specified articles under Notification No. 1/93. As regards limitation, we find on perusal of the Classification List that the appellants have declared their products attracting basic duty @ 15% ad valorem. There is no mention of Notification No. 1/93 in the said Classification List. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvocate that the provisions of Section 11AC would not apply inasmuch as the differential duty relates to the period prior to introduction of the said Section. However, we also note that the show cause notice proposed imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q. Accordingly, we reduce the quantum of penalty from Rs. 15,435.00 (Rupees fifteen thousand four hundred thirty five) to Rs. 5,000.00 (Rupees five ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
