2004 (6) TMI 370

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Respondent. [Order]. The above captioned appeals have been directed against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 1-8-2003 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the Additional Commissioner who confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalties on the appellants. 2. The learned Counsel has contended that the duty demand could not be confirmed as the sam .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . On completion of the investigation as is evident from the record, show cause notice dated 20-7-2001 was initially issued wherein only penalty was proposed to be imposed on the appellants under Rule 173Q read with Section 11AC of the Act on account of the shortage of the raw material. No duty demand was raised in that show cause notice. The duty demand was raised for the first time through a corr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... essee for appropriation of that amount. In this context reference may be made to the ratio of law laid down in Veera Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore - 2001 (131) E.L.T. 437 wherein it has been so ruled, after making reference to a Board s Circular No. 290/6/97-CX., dated 20-1-97. The corrigendum issued for the duty demand, as observed above, is time barred as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X