9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and imposing penalty of ₹ 50,000 under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of hypodermic syringes, during the relevant period 1988 to 1992, was selling the goods to wholesale dealers and was also selling a part of the goods to UNICEF under a contract entered into in response to global tenders. Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd proposing demand of differential duty on the basis of the actual price received from UNICEF and invoking larger period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act. Appellant resisted the demand on merits and on the ground of limitation. The Collector of Central Excise overruled this contention and confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. 3. The main contention urged by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eived from UNICEF had been disclosed at the time of filing monthly RT 12 Returns. The answer of Shri K. Srivastava, SDR is that while disclosing price in US Dollars, the appellant indicated in the invoices excisable value in Indian Rupees thereby making the department believe that the excisable value in Indian Rupees represented equivalent of the price in US Dollars furnished in the invoices. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the excisable duty paid on these transactions. Appellant was thus clearly aware that whatever excisable duty was paid would be reimbursed to the appellant. Having regard to all the circumstances it would not be appropriate to conclude that the failure to disclose in the price lists the contract price for supply to UNICEF was wilful or deliberate or with intent to evade central excise duty. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
