9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igation was taken up by the Revenue on the ground that the appellant had crossed the exemption limit of Rs. 300 lakhs in the previous financial year 2002-03 thereby making the assessee ineligible for exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 for the year 2003-04. After verification of the records and investigation, proceedings were initiated that culminated in denial of small scale exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 and consequential demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 2,10,972/- with interest. Further penalty equal to duty was imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act 1944 and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules on the assessee. The duty demand was confirmed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot amount to manufacture by them and therefore duty demand is not sustainable. Revenue is in appeal on the ground that appellant had deliberately mis-declared the turnover and had also not declared the fact of manufacture of denatured alcohol in their factory and therefore there was suppression of facts and mis-declaration with intention to evade duty and therefore penalties imposed by the original authority are required to be sustained and not set aside. 2. Nobody is present on behalf of the assessee. The matter is being listed for hearing from February 2010 onwards and on no occasion the assessee has been present even though the matter was listed for hearing on more than 7 occasions. Accordingly we take up the appeal for final dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the process cannot be said to amount to manufacture and therefore no duty liability is attracted cannot be sustained. Accordingly appeal filed by the assessee is rejected. 3. As regards the appeal filed by the Revenue, if a view is taken that mixing of a denaturant to impure spirit in the tanker does not amount to manufacture, there would be no duty demand at all. Under these circumstances, for imposing penalty on the ground of suppression of facts and mis-declaration, we have to see whether this activity was undertaken with deliberate intention to evade duty and whether there was suppression of facts. The fact that the tanker was brought by the buyer and denaturant was also brought by the buyer and assessee simply poured the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
