2002 (1) TMI 123

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 11-5-2001 of the Commissioner (appeals) vide which he had affirmed the order-in-original, dated 27-7-99 of the Additional Commissioner confirming the duty demand of Rs. 1,74,332/- with equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act and also directing the payment of interest at the rate of 20% in terms of Section 11AB. 2. The appella .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t at the rate of 20%. This order of the Additional Commissioner had been confirmed by the Commissioner (appeals). 3. None has come present for the appellants today. The Counsel has sent written submissions and also prayed for an adjournment. We do not find any sufficient ground to allow adjournment. We have gone through the written submissions and heard SDR. Therefore, we proceed to decide .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat duty demand in respect of sale of old parts by them, had not been confirmed against them. The adjudicating authority, by taking into consideration this plea of the appellants, reduced the demand from Rs. 2,09,109/- as raised in the show cause notice, to Rs. 1,74,332/- and this demand pertains to the sale of scrap by them. 5. The ratio of law laid down in A.C.C. Limited v. C.C.E., Bhopa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X