2017 (9) TMI 692

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... DER The facts of the case is that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of castings and automobile parts. In the investigation of Income Tax, it was found from the record that the appellants have cleared certain steel, waste and scrap on which no excise duty was paid.  Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued wherein   the demand  of excise duty was raised  on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lity  of scrap cannot be ascertained. Accordingly, on such clearances no duty could have been demanded.  He alternatively submits that the penalty imposed under Section 11AC corresponding to the confirmation of demand of Rs. 1,23,189/-. Since this amount was determined by Commissioner (Appeals) the option of 25% as provided under Section 11AC should have been given by the Ld. Commissione .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oduce any evidence to rebut this position, therefore the demand confirmed to the tune of Rs. 1,23,189/- is correct and  legal. I, therefore uphold the demand. As regard the 25% penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, I find that this demand of Rs. 1,23,189/- was determined by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order.  Therefore the period of one month for depositing .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X