9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the duty was not properly quantified cannot be accepted, at this stage. However, we agree with the submission of the learned Advocate that penalty should not be imposed on the Director of the Appellant Company. We do not find any material available on record for imposition of penalty on the Director of the Appellant Company. We have also considered that the Adjudicating authority has not given th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng, S.G. Iron Steel Casting and Alloy Steel Castings, classifiable under sub-heading No.7325.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 28.09.2002, the Central Excise officers visited the Appellants- factory and found that they have issued debit note for pattern charges to their various customers and recovered the amount from them which was not included in the assessable value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e would be includable in the assessable value as amortization charges which is not charged in the show cause notice. He further submits that in any event, the demand of duty on account of amortisation charges is excessive without considering the actual amount of duty. 4. We are not impressed with the submissions of the learned Advocate. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wer authorities and even before the Tribunal. The contention of the learned Advocate that the duty was not properly quantified cannot be accepted, at this stage. However, we agree with the submission of the learned Advocate that penalty should not be imposed on the Director of the Appellant Company. We do not find any material available on record for imposition of penalty on the Director of the Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
