TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 960X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 lakhs on Shri S.K. Dutta, Accounts Manager of the company under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. Penalties of ₹ 2 lakhs each have been imposed on the other 3 appellants under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. The duty demand relates to clearances of DG sets (electric generating sets) cleared to 12 customers without payment of duty during the period August 1991 to March 1994, holding them to be excisable goods falling for classification under CET Sub-heading 85.02 attracting duty at the appropriate rate provided under the Heading. The land, building, plant and machinery of M/s. TIL Ltd. has been confiscated with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of ₹ 10 lakhs. DG sets found inter alia in the premises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- and that the correct assessable value is ₹ 60 lakhs. 6. Benefit of Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of DG sets which have been held to be liable to duty, should be extended to the appellant company and cannot be denied only for non-observance of modvat procedure. 3. Learned Counsel also challenges the invocation of the extended period of limitation submitting that the appellant company was under the bona fide belief based upon a CBEC Circular issued in 1996 that the DG sets assembled at site with duty paid components were not liable to duty and, therefore, the manufacturer cannot be held guilty of any suppression with intent to evade payment of duty so as to confirm the duty demand by applying th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the matter may be remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner for re-quantification in the light of the submissions of TIL on factors to be kept in view while correctly computing the duty amount. He also justifies imposition of penalty on the manufacturer and its officer and on the various customers of the manufacturer. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. The appellants do not contest the duty liability on DG sets in view of the Tribunal s decision cited supra. Following the ratio thereof, DG sets manufactured and cleared by M/s. TIL are an excisable commodity falling for classification under CET Sub-heading 85.02. However, the same decision holds that there is no case for the Department to demand duty by inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
