9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the impugned order whereby the demand of Rs. 14,84,656/- was confirmed for invoking the extended period of limitation and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on the appellants under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. A demand for interest was also made in the adjudication order. The only contention of the appellants is that six show-cause notices were adjudicated by the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nciled. The present demand is in pursuant to the procedure specified under above Circular. The contention is that as the Revenue was aware that there was certain shortages and excess in the stockyard, therefore, the allegation of suppression is not sustainable and the demand beyond the normal period of limitation is barred by limitation. 2. The appellants also submitted that the demand of intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficers. Therefore, the demand for invoking the extended period of limitation is sustainable. In respect of the interest, the contention is that as the duty was paid after the due dates the interest is leviable. 4. In respect of the contention of the appellants that the demand under show-cause notice dated 22-2-99 is time barred, we find that the adjudicating authority held that the appellants w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espective plant suo-motu, through TR-6 challan by calculating the duty payable in the manner specified in the Circular and in case of excess duty paid the refund will not be claimed by the stockyard/depot. As the applicant is availing the benefit of the Circular, therefore, is bound by the terms of the condition of the Circular. Hence, we find no infirmity in the impugned order whereby demand by i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
