9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the financial year thus option for the availment is not in accordance with the Central Excise Rules - The duty and the Education Cess which they did not pay for not determining the value of Rs. 25,44,255/- in computation with the aggregate value for home consumption, is computable with the aggregate clearance value in terms of the Notification No.08/2003-CE dated 01.3.2003. Penalty under Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No.08/03-CE dated 01.03.2003(as amended) for not discharging the duty @16% adv. amounting to Rs.4,07,081/- and Education Cess of Rs.8,142/-. Accordingly, a show cause-cum-demand notice dated 31.08.04 was issued against them. The lower Adjudicating Authority confirmed the amount of duty and imposed a penalty of Rs.5,000/- under Rule 27 of the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.5.04. 6. Learned AR reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner(Appeals). 7. We have considered the submissions and perused the records. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has found in his Order as follows: I find that the appellant did not opt for availing the benefit of Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.3.2003 at the beginning of the financial year and availed of the benefits o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions 14(ii) of the Notification No. 6/2003-CE dated 01.3.2003 and in terms of para 3(a) of the Notification N0. 8/2003-CE dated 01.3.2003, there was no exemption of the said value for the purpose of determining to compute with the aggregate value of clearance for home consumption. So. l hold that the duty of Rs. 4.07,081/- and the Education Cess of Rs. 8442/- which they did not pay for not deter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch was not invoked in the impugned SCN. By way of imposing penalty under Rule 27 he travels beyond the SCN. So, I hold that penalty under Rule 27 is not sustainable. 8. We find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has given a clear and cogent finding and the Appellant could not produce anything contrary to the above. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the Appeal filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
