TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeared on behalf of the appellants. Accordingly, I have heard Shri A.K. Chattopadhyay, learned JDR for the Revenue. 2. Vide the impugned order, duty of Rs. 25,010.00 has been confirmed and an equivalent amount of penalty has been imposed under the provisions of Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Formaldehyde and cleared their product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L.A. RT-12 returns of the said month were also filed by the appellants. 3.1. Subsequently, the appellants were served with a show cause notice, dated 25-2-1997 raising demand of duty of Rs. 25, 010/- alleged to be short-paid by them in respect of two Invoice Nos. 83 and 84 both dated 18-5-1996 on the alleged ground that the weighment of the tankers covered by the said two invoices were made in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... poses to another weigh bridge. I agree with the observations of the authorities below that the appellants should have informed the Central Excise Authorities in respect of non-functioning of the recognised weigh bridge before taking the goods to another or at least after the weighment was done. But this can be considered at best as a procedural infraction and cannot be made the basis for arriving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
