9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght Zinc Slabs from the imported raw material (Galvaniser Zinc Ash). They were not earlier paying duty on the final product, but as a result of the Budgetary changes, waste and scrap of Zinc was excluded from Chapter 79 and included in Chapter 26 w.e.f. 1-3-1988. As such, the zinc Slabs manufactured by the appellants from the said raw material became classifiable under Chapter 26 and as such were not entitled for exemption under Notification No. 104/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988 as amended by Notification No. 183/88 dated 13-5-88 which the appellants were earlier availing. 3. The issue involved is, as to whether the benefit of Notification No. 183/88-C.E., dated 13-5-1988 was available to the appellants during the period 13-5-1988 to 22-6-1988 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he clearances effected by the appellants were of the goods falling under Chapter 26 of the CETA for which exemption under the above said notification was not available to them and this fact was admitted by their representative in the statement dated 29-7-1988. 6. The argument of the learned Counsel that after allowing SSI exemption, still concessional rate of duty was available to the appellants, cannot be accepted for want of any material on record to substantiate the same. The Modvat claim was never lodged by the appellants before the authorities below and as such had been rightly not considered. 7. The limitation point raised by the Counsel, had been discussed in the Order-in-Original in para 4.3 (internal page 10 of the paper book) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and suppressed the material facts from the Department the appellants have been rightly burdened with the penalty. It is not essential to bifurcate the amount of penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q separately when it is imposable under both these provisions. The ratio of the law laid down in the case of Agarwal Pharmaceuticals, supra, wherein it has been observed, that penalty was sustainable for want of apportionment under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q, is not applicable as in that case penalty was not imposable under both the provisions. But such is not the position in the present case. 10. In view of the discussion made above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same is upheld. Cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
