2004 (6) TMI 512

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t. [Order per : K.C. Mamgain, Member (T)]. Heard both sides. 2. The appellants are manufacturers of Blown Bitumin, Rain Guard, Aluminium Paint and Black Japan. They were clearing these goods without following any central excise formalities and without payment of duties. On investigation, it was found that during the years 95-96, and 96-97, they had crossed the exemption limits under No .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nly. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellants pleaded that the value on which duty is chargeable may be taken as cum-duty price in view of the following decisions. (i) Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Pawan Tyres Pvt. Ltd., 1997 (93) E.L.T. 635 (ii) GOI v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd., 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.) He also pleaded that penalty under Section 11AC and interest u .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... alue in excess of the exemption limit is to be taken as cum-duty price for charging central excise duty and accordingly the duty liability from the appellants is required to be re-worked out. We also find that Section 11AC was effective from 28-9-96, therefore, penalty if any is imposable under that Section should be for the clearances after 28-9-96. According to Board s Circular No. 329/44/97-CX .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X