2020 (2) TMI 1165

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ron castings. The controversy arose in this case is that, whether the writ petitioner has manufactured un-machined castings or not? . The reason being that if it is un-machined castings duty exemption can be claimed otherwise if it is machined-castings duty exemption cannot be claimed. 3. Before the Assessing Authority though it was claimed by the Writ petitioner/Assessee that, it has filed the classification lists as to explain what amount of Castings the Assessee Company produced, the same was denied by the Revenue and ultimately, the Assessing Authority passed an order against the Assessee which was appealed before the First Appellate Authority . Even before the First Appellate Authority, the same State of Affairs was continued as has b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... essee that the assessee have not filed any classification list with the department as stated by them. In view of the above, it is clear that M/s.Servall Engineering Foundry, Bilichi, Coimbatore-19 have suppressed the facts and contravened the provisions of Rule 9(1), 52A, 173B and 173G of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 4. Therefore the First Appellate Authority also confirmed the duty levied on the Assessee to the extent of Rs. 3,46,058.73 (Rupees Three Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Fifty eight and Paise Seventy three only) and also the imposition of penalty of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only). Aggrieved over the same, the Assessee filed an Appeal before the CESTAT. The learned CESTAT, having gone though the factual matrix, also found that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent of duty during the material period stands proved in this case. Our findings with regard to the appellants' letter dated 20.2.88 and their failure to produce copy of the classification list do not have a bearing on this aspect. We, therefore, reject the plea of time bar. 4. Clearance of dutiable goods without payment of duty having been found against the party, a penalty under Rule 9(2) and Rule 173Q has to be sustained. The penalty of Rs. 3,000/- imposed by the lower authority is considered to be reasonable. 5. In the result, the appeal is rejected." 5. In these circumstances, even though the learned counsel for the Assessee just and again reiterated that the Assessee has produced the classification list to establish that, it h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X