9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rkar, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. The appeal arises out of the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai confirming the duty demand of Rs. 19,469.77 by applying the extended period of limitation against the appellant and imposing penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the appellant. 2. The appellants are holders of A4 licences to whom a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,581/-, and that no penalty was warranted due to the bona fide belief in the mind of the appellant, was rejected by the adjudicating authority resulting in the demand confirmation and imposition of penalty. Hence this appeal. 3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. 4. We accept the contention of the Counsel for the appellant that the longer period of limitation is not attracted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was payable within the six months period on cut leads. 6. We are now left to consider the sustainability of the duty demand on the remaining four items. We find that the Commissioner has held that the value of different items which form part of the finished goods is includible and we accept this finding as reflecting the correct legal position. We, therefore, hold that the duty demand of Rs. 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of time. In the result while we uphold the demand of duty of Rs. 7,563.70, set aside the balance duty demand and the penalty imposed. 9. The appeal is thus partly allowed. 10. The appellant has deposited the entire duty demand confirmed against them and this has been noted in the stay order passed by the Tribunal. We, therefore, direct consequential relief to the appellants. - - TaxTMI - TM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
