TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants, M/s. Aries Agrovet Industries Ltd. are engaged in manufacture of pesticides and micronutrients. Revenue proceeded against appellants by way of issue of show cause notice dated 30-6-2001 for the period from 23-7-1996 to 31-10-1999 on. the following grounds : (a) The micronutrients manufactured by them were classifiable as plant growth regulators under Chapter Heading 3808.20 attracting Central Excise duty. (b) The Plantomycin received in concentrated form from the appellants' Mumbai unit on payment of duty and when are packed and sold in unit packs are to be cleared from Hyderabad Branch on payment of duty. 2.1 The Adjudicating Authority dropped the demand in respect of the first ground. As regards the duty liability on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do not show the discounts and therefore, the appellants are not entitled for the same, is not tenable. The appellants also produced various circulars issued by them to show that the discount is indeed admissible. So on this grounds, we find that the discount ought to have been allowed to the appellants. Therefore, we set aside that portion of the order of the Commissioner, which has rejected the grant of discount and grant of abatement of discount from the assessable value. 4.1 The Commissioner has also demanded interest on the duty demanded. The learned advocate invited our attention to the provisions of Section 11 AB. According to Section 11AB which was amended on 14-5-2000 introducing a proviso whereby the provisions relating to levy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it packs would not amount to manufacture. Once they came to know that the items are liable for duty, they voluntarily paid their duty liability. Therefore, it was pleaded that the longer period would not applicable. The learned advocate relied on a large number of case laws on the issue. The following case have been relied on: (1) Sanghi Polyesters Ltd. v. CCE - Final Order No. 1151/2005 dated 12-7-2005 [2006 (205) E.L.T. 385 (Tribunal)] passed by this Bench. 4.3 He has also furnished a large number of decisions, which hold that in order to levy penalty under Section 11AC, contumacious conduct has to be proved. The following case laws have been relied (i) Padmini Products v. CCE - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 (S.C.) (ii) Tamil N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
