9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uring the course of manufacturing of the same, dross and skimming arise at the factory of the appellant. The said dross and skimming are were non-excisable during the relevant period. A show cause notice was issued by the Revenue demanding duty for the period 1-12-2000 to 31-7-2005 on such dross and skimming. The appellant contested the show cause notice only to that part of the duty involved in the period 1-12-2000 to 28-2-2005 and discharged the duty liability for the period 1-3-2005 to 24-7-2005 along with interest also put defence for non imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for the period 1-3-2005 to 24-7-2005 and appropriated the amount already paid by the appellant along with interest and dropped pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of Section 11AC as he has not paid the duty for the period 1-3-2005 to 24-7-2005 despite being aware that the duty is payable on such Aluminium Dross and Skimming. It is his submission that provisions of Section 11A are attracted to this case. He submits that the order-in-appeal is to be upheld. 5. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. It is seen from the records that the appellants were issued show cause notice for the demand of the duty on the Aluminium Dross Skimming for the period 1-12-2000 to 31-7-2005. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings 1-12-2000 to 28-2-2005 and is not being disputed by both sides. Since the appellant is not challenging the amount of the duty and the interest for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also that where the duty determined to be payable is reduced or increased by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellant Tribunal or, as the case may be, the court, then, for the purposes of this section, the duty as reduced or increased, as the case may be, shall be taken into account: Provided also that in case where the duty determined to be payable is increased by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, the court, then, the benefit of reduced penalty under the first proviso shall be available, if the amount of duty so increased, the interest payable thereon and twenty-five per cent of the consequential increase of penalty have also been paid within thirty days of the communication of the order by which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1-7-2005 and still continuing to do so. To my mind the provisions of Section 11AC cannot be applied in this case, as such equivalent penalty imposed, under Section 11AC requires to be set aside and I do so. 7. As regards, the submission made by the Id. Advocate it is a fact that the appellant should have been vigilant and careful in reading the provisions of the law and it was for him to follow the law and should have started paying duty from 1-3-2005. Having failed to do so, there is violation of the provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. As such, penal provisions under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 get attracted. The penalty is imposable under the said Rule is Rs. 5,000/- and I hold that this penalty is imposable on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
