TMI Blog1989 (10) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, dated 29-4-1988, under which levy of penalty of Rs. 100 has been upheld. 2. The penalty has been levied in respect of the events which took place in 1978-79 when the appellant had been allowed to avail of the benefit of Notification 71/78 and in terms of that Notification they were eligible for the benefit of the total exemption upto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants to the authorities. To that extent some duty became leviable in respect of the clearances which were made beyond the Rs. 5 lakh limit and claimed to be within the exemption limits according to the working of the limit of Rs. 5 lakhs by the appellants. After making various adjustments, the net amount of refund of Rs. 1,78,017.80 was allowed as against Rs. 1,93,251.24 claimed by the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eging that the appellants had mis-declared the value of the clearances of the year 1977-78 and availed of the benefit of Notification 71/78, dated 1-3-1978 wrongly. This plea was not countenanced by the Tribunal in the proceedings in which the appellants went in appea1 as this plea could not be raised at the appeal stage. The learned Consultant pleads that inasmuch as the proceedings had acquired ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. I observe that the appellants have been charged in 1986 with mis-declaration in regard to their total quantum of clearances in respect of the clearances made in 1978-79. The matter had been gone into in depth by the authorities at different levels and at no stage there was any whisper in the refund proceedings that any element of mis-declaration or suppression on the part of the appellants wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the authorities, and also when in the show cause notice also no specific violation of any rule has been cited warranting levy of the penalty, the penal proceedings drawn are mis-conceived. Inasmuch as, as pointed out by both the sides, the issue had already acquired finality and in the refund proceedings the plea that the total value of the clearances were wrongly declared was not stated to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
