9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , AC (AR) for the respondent ORDER PER: Dr. D.M. Mishra This is an appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal No. PI/RKS/102/2011 dated 07.07.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune I. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of PVC Pipes fittings etc. falling under Chapter 39 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant has submitted that the differential duty was payable due to determination of the cost of production, applying CAS-4 method on the data available on monthly basis. He submits that the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) has not disputed the liability of differential duty but vehemently argued that penalty cannot be imposed on them under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plying CAS-4 method with appropriate data, the differential duty of Rs. 3,16,512/- became payable by the appellant. The appellant has not disputed the amount on merit and a part of it was paid by them along with interest. The contention of the appellant is that penalty equivalent to differential duty under section 11AC is unwarranted. We find force in the contention of Learned Advocate for the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
