9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue filed the appeal against order-in-appeal No. BPS(273)61/2003 dated 12.9.2003 whereby Commissioner (Appeals) has imposed a token penalty of Rs.10,000/-. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of Sugar falling under Chapter Heading 1701.31 and 1701.39 to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondent cleared free sale of sugar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter, a show-cause notice was issued for confirmation of duty already paid by the respondent and along with a demand of interest and proposal for penalty under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules 1944 and Section 11AC. The lower adjudicating authority confirmed the said proposals and imposed a penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q. The respondent challenged the same The Ld. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sugar'for the period from October 1997 to December 1997 on loan basis to Food Corporation of India to 'free sale sugar'. The respondent charged and received differential amount at the rate of price applicable for 'free sale sugar' against the entire quantity cleared as levy sugar on loan basis. The respondent did not pay the differential duty on the same. However, they have paid the differential d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f evasion through mis-statement, suppression and fraud was proved justifying the application of extended period and equal amount of penalty which is not there in the present case. Therefore, the case law cited is not applicable to facts of the case. Undisputedly, the respondent has not challenged the imposition of token penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
