9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 390/- for some states in Northern Region. The second declaration for clearance at MRP of ₹ 390/- has been acknowledged by the Inspector of the Dept on 8.3.2001 - the allegation of the Dept. that there was no intimation or declaration filed with the Dept. is incorrect. Since there were two price declarations, one for all India and another for Northern states at the MRP of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the manufacture of household plastic articles falling under Chapter 39 of the CETA 1985. During the scrutiny of Central Excise records, the Central Excise officers observed that the unit had cleared the goods ie., Milton Water Jug Kool Cascades 190 Lts for home consumption to their authorized distributor/dealers during the period from March 2001 to Sept. 2001. During the said period the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty under Sec. 11AC of CEA 1944. On adjudication, entire demand was confirmed along with interest and imposition of equivalent penalty and also penalty of ₹ 5,000/- on Shri A J Joshi, authorized signatory. In appeal, the adjudication order was modified to the extent-of dropping the penalty against Shri Atul J Joshi. Aggrieved from the said order of Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He also drew the attention to the statement of Shri Joshi, wherein he had clearly mentioned that the sticker of MRP was changed and it was printed ₹ 390/- before dispatch of the said goods from 8.3.2001 only. He pointed out that they had kept the Dept. fully informed and acted as per law. Therefore, the demand was not justified and barred by limitation also and was not sustainable. 4. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orized signatory. However, we find since there were two price declarations, one for all India and another for Northern states at the MRP of ₹ 471/- and ₹ 390/- w.e.f. 8.3.2001 respectively, we find that authorised signatory had mentioned the facts correctly, In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no substance in the Revenue s contention that there was mala fide intent. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
