9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 523X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved without payment of duty, confiscated the goods lying in the premises of the buyer on the ground that no central excise duty was discharged on them and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) and Rs. 8,43,508.39 (Rupees eight lakhs forty-three thousand five hundred eight and thirty-nine paise only) under Section 11AC and under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Hence this appeal. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant was a manufacturer of exhibition panels, buntings/danglers, dispensers, vinyl stickers, glow sign board, banners and paper board boxes. It was alleged that the appellant removed goods valued at Rs. 52,68,663/- during the year 1996-97 without payment of central excise duty amount to Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not give any opportunity to the appellant to put forth his case in regard to classification of the goods; that when the case was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication by the Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation, he should have issued another show cause notice before adjudicating the case; that he did not issue a show cause notice vitiated the entire proceedings; that the goods are not marketable as they are of no use to others except to his customers; that they are not bought and sold in the market; that the Department has not discharged the onus cast on them to establish marketability of the goods in question; that the initial demand was for a larger sum of money; that the Commissioner confirmed only Rs. 8,43,508.39 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat another show cause notice should have been issued before de novo proceedings were conducted at the behest of the Tribunal has no merit and, therefore, we discard the proposition that another show cause notice should have been issued. On the issue of invocation of larger period of limitation, we observe that the basic allegation against the appellant is that he has removed goods without filing declarations and without even having himself registered as an SSI unit. The appellant cannot contend that he was ignorant of the fact that the goods manufactured by him were excisable. The show cause notice clearly states as to how the larger period is invocable. On the issue as to whether penalty can be imposed for offences committed prior to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
