9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds on payment of duty to their suppliers. Supplies made by the appellant during the relevant period were rejected by their purchasers, which were brought back to their factory for re-conditioning, re-making under Rule 173H of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Subsequent to such re-conditioning and re-making, appellant removed the said goods without payment of duty, as provided under Rule 173H. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant demanding the duty on such clearances on the allegation that the activity undertaken by the appellant on the returned goods, amounts to manufacture of goods as per Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The adjudicating authority, in the first round of litigation confirmed the deman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. The appellant has violated the provisions as regards the clearance of excisable goods without payment of duty. It is his submission that the demand of duty being held correct, the imposition of penalty is also correct. 5. Considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused records. It is undisputed that the appellant were working under the provisions of Rule 173H when the case was booked against them. Appellant had brought back the finished goods from their buyers by filing D-3 declaration and subsequent to reconditioning the said returned goods, cleared the same without payment of duty as provided under Rule 173H. It cannot be now said that the appellant had intention to remove the goods without payment of duty. Provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supra). The Hon ble Supreme Court has held as under :- 5. The Revenue has preferred an appeal from the order of the Tribunal setting aside the imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal has set aside the order of the Commissioner on the ground that neither the show cause notice nor the order of the Commissioner specified which particular clause of Rule 173Q had been allegedly contravened by the appellant. We are of the view that the agreed finding of the Tribunal is correct. Rule 173Q contains six clauses the contents of which are not same. It was, therefore, necessary for the assessee to be put on notice as to the exact nature of contravention for which the assessee was liable under the provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
