9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Ahibaran, Additional Commissioner (A.R.), for the Respondent. ORDER Heard both sides. 2. Appellant filed this appeal No. E/2353/2004 against the impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) whereby demand of Rs. 5,23,182/- was upheld and penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. 3. Revenue also filed appeal No. E/2620/2004 against the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Food Corporation of India (FCI) in terms of the Ministry of Food & Civil Supply of the Government of India order dated 27-10-1997. The appellants were directed to clear the levy sugar, as the quota of levy sugar was not available. The free sale sugar was cleared by discharging the duty liability, as the rate applicable to levy of sugar. Subsequently, the Government of India vide order dated 29-11- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication order in respect of the demand and interest however reduced the penalty. 6. The contention of the ld. Counsel appeared on behalf of the manufacturer is that the differential duty has been paid in the month of September, 2001, as the appellant received intimation that Government of India is going to reimburse the differential amount. The contention is that it is not a case for imposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f clearance to the date of payment of duty. 8. In respect of penalty the Revenue submitted that appellant had not informed the Revenue regarding clearance of levy sugar and in respect of clearance of duty. It is also submitted that though the appellant cleared the sugar against the quota of levy sugar though charge the duty as applicable to the Free Sale Sugar hence, there is an intention to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
