9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Member (T) [Order per : Moheb Ali M., Member (T)]. - This appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Vadodara. In the impugned order, the Commissioner upheld the demand for duty under proviso to Section 11A, imposition of penalty under Section 11AC and demand for interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act. The period involved is 1992-93. 2. Briefly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtaken while inserting these liners in the HDPE bags. He further submitted that larger period of limitation is not invocable as the department was aware that the value of the liners is not included as early as in 1994 itself whereas show cause notice was issued in 1997 for the period 1992-93. He further argued that in any case, penalty under Section 11AC cannot be imposed and interest under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bags will not serve the purpose for which they are meant. We have perused the purchase orders made on the appellant. They clearly say that the appellant is required to supply HDPE woven bags made out of tubular cloth woven on circular looms with HDPE liners, the specification of which is also given. Thus, the bags cleared from the factory are with the liners. The appellant's plea that even without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es to the demand for differential duty. 6. In regard to penalty under Section 11AC, we observe that it is not imposable as the period involved in the present case is prior to the introduction of these provisions in the statute. The same thing applies to the demand for interest as well. We, therefore, set aside the penalty and the demand for interest, 7. The appeal is thus partly allowed in the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
