9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Reddy, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S. L. Peeran, Member (J)]. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal Nos. 28 29/2004, dated 31-3-2004. The impugned order confined the Order-in-Original raising demands for the period June, 97 to September, 97 as per Proviso to Rule 96ZB of C.E. Rules and also imposed penalty. The appellant is a manufacturer of aluminium circles falling under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... worked out the differential duty payable from the date of issue of Notification No. 67/97-C.E., dated 27-11-1997 and paid Rs. 50,667/- for the period from 27-11-1997 to 30-9-1998 under TR-6 Challen dated 7/17-10-1998 and informed the same to the range superintendent by their letter dated 20th October, 98. A show cause notice dated 23-2-2000 was issued by the Additional Commissioner demanding the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er contended that regular RT-12 returns were filed. On being pointed out the differential duty to be paid, the assessee on their own accord had paid an amount of Rs. 50,667 for the period from 27-11-1997 to 30-9-1998 under TR Challan dated 7/17-10-98. Therefore, the show cause notice issued on 23-2-2000 is barred by time. There was no suppression of facts nor there was any mis-declaration. Therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ord deposited duty of Rs. 50,667/-. The department was aware of the activity of the assessee as the assessee were paying duty under compounded levy scheme and were also filing RT-12 monthly returns. Therefore, in these circumstances, charge of mis-declaration under Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11A is not sustainable. The demands are barred by time. The appellants succeed both on merits as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
