9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Applicant. Heard the learned AR for the Revenue. 2. The Appellant filed this Appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No.99/Kol-IV/2006 dated 30.06.2006, whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has modified the lower Adjudicating Authority s Order. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Appellant are engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 48 of the Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmation of the demand. Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant filed the Appeal. 5. Learned Advocate for the Appellant has taken us through the Grounds of Appeal. In the Grounds of Appeal, the Appellant has submitted that they were availing the benefit of Notification No.6/03 dated 01.03.03 and were required to pay duty @8% in terms of the aforesaid Notification. Therefore, they were entitled f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearance of the said goods without payment of duty on and from 01.05.2004 in terms of the said Notification upto the first clearance value of Rs 100 Lakhs. As per computation commencing on and from 01.4.2004, the first clearance value of Rs. 100 Lakhs was exceeded in the amount of August, 2004 of the said financial year but they started to pay duty at the full rate on and from September,2004 due ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the demanded amount. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority had adjusted the said amount and reduced the demand to Rs.2,01,485/-. The adiudicating authority had imposed penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules. 2002 in the impugned Order-in-Original. I find that the adiudicating authority himself in his findings had stated that there was no malafide intention to evade the payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
