9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey started payment of duty only from 6-6-97. Thus, no payment of duty was made in respect of clearances from 14-5-97 to 5-6-97. The amount of duty not paid worked out to Rs. 3,97,880/- and on 3-11-97 the appellants debited this duty amount in their PLA. All the same a show cause notice dated 13-11-97 was issued to the party. In the adjudication proceedings a penalty equivalent to the duty not pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicated in the instant case. Infact, there was no occasion to make such allegations as the duty involved was paid by the assessee even before any demand was raised. The learned Counsel for the appellant also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of [2000 (120) E.L.T. 81] in support of his contention. 3. Opposing the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, learned DR pointe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vant for the purpose of imposition of penalty. DR also submitted that penalty was imposable under Section 11AC even in cases of contravention of any provision of the Rules with intention to evade payment of duty, and in the present case, the appellant had not taken registration of modvat in violation of Rule. 4. I have perused the records and have considered the submissions made by both sides. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisions relating to penalty had also been invoked in the proceedings, it has to be held that the penalty was imposed under 11AC only and not under other provisions. Thus, in the instant case the penalty demand has to be held to be made under Section 11AC only. 5. In view of what has been stated above, the penalty imposed and the interest demanded have to be treated as not legally correct. I hol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
