9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st at the applicable rate is to be charged from the party under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944. The parry filed an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi vide his order dated 10-1-2002 - but for reducing the penalty of Rs. 2,10,000/- and setting aside the interest - otherwise rejected the appeal of the party. 2. M/s. W.G. Maurya Shertaon Hotel Towers and the Revenue - both are in appeal against the impugned Order of Commissioner (Appeals). M/s. Maurya Shertaon Hotel Towers have filed a stay petition for waiver of the balance of the duty amount of Rs. 2,40,949.00 and the penalty of Rs. 2,10,000/- confirmed on them by the Commissioner (Appeals). It is on record that they have already paid a sum of Rs. 6.00 lakhs on 12-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ual amount should not be imposed on them under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. They were also called upon to show cause why the interest should not be charged from them under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944. After considering the case of the party, the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I in his order dated 26-2-99 has confirmed a duty of Rs. 8,40,949/- on the appellants under the provisions of Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944. He has observed that since the party has already made a payment of Rs. 5.50 lakhs on 12-12-97, this amount is appropriated towards confirmation of above amount of duty. He has furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd under sub-heading No. 1905.11 respectively. He also does not contest the value of the goods cleared by them during the period from 1-9-93 to 21-12-97 assessed by the authorities and in respect of which the demand of duty is made on them since the value of the goods cleared during this period is furnished by the appellants themselves. He further does not question the rate of duty made applicable to these products and the resultant quantification of the amount of duty. He, however, submits that in respect of the chocolates falling under sub-heading 1803.00, no process of manufacture is undertaken since they have been buying chocolates in bulk and in bars from outside, adding to them the nuts and dry fruits and thereafter converting them in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Chapter note No. 3 to Chapter 18. To this contention of the ld. SDR, the ld. Counsel for the appellants makes the reply that this Chapter note will apply only to the cases where the goods are not already marketable and are subjected to labelling, relabelling and repacking etc. It is contended that since the appellants are buying chocolate in bulk quantity which is already marketable and further subjecting it to the process of cutting and adding dry fruits and nuts etc., the same would not be covered within mischief of this chapter note. This contention of the ld. Counsel for the appellants, if accepted, will render these provisions otiose. In terms of this Chapter note, labelling or relabelling of containers, even repacking from bulk pack ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ef. The Central Excise duty was imposed on the cakes and pastries in the Budge of 1997 but even on these products, they did not pay duty the demand for which is restricted for a period from 1-3-97 to 21-12-97. The chocolates etc. are subject to levy of duty under sub-heading No. 1803.00 right since September, 1993. The bona fide belief is a question of fact to be determined in the facts and circumstances of each case. In this case, there is no evidence to support the argument of bona fide belief. The contention of the party in this regard therefore, cannot be admitted. The extended period of demand in this case has rightly been invoked. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, we are of the view that the case of the appellants c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the present case the demand of duty relates to the period from 1-9-93 to 21-12-97 and the provisions of Section 11AB became effective only on 28-9-96, the interest under these provisions can be charged only for the demand from 28-9-96 to 21-12-97. 10. In view of the discussion as above, the appeal of M/s. W.G. Maurya Shertaon Hotel Towers as regards the confirmation of the amount of duty of Rs. 8,40,949/- is rejected. The penalty imposed on them however, is reduced to Rs. 1 lakh. The appeal of the Revenue relating to the charging of the interest under Section 11AB is allowed only in respect of the amount of demand for the period from 28-9-96 to 21-12-97. No interest can be charged in respect of the amount of demand relating to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
