9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - In this case M/s. Ferrous Forgings Ltd. have only challenged the imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,87,424/- which is equivalent to the amount of duty confirmed against them. 2. Shri S.K. Pahwa, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture steel forgings which were sent by them for machining outside their factory premises to job workers under the provision of Rule 57F(4) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uantity of scrap from the job workers, and therefore, they adopted a procedure under which the scrap was retained by the job workers and the duty was paid by them once in 4 to 6 months; that they had paid the duty in this manner twice earlier in October, 1996 and February, 1997 and the fact was mentioned in RG 23A, Part II and no objection was taken by the Department; that the entire material had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act is justified. 4. I have considered the submissions of both the sides. As the Appellants have not challenged the confirmation of duty of excise the same is upheld. The Appellants' contention is that they have not concealed the fact of leaving scrap at the premises of their job workers as they had mentioned payment of duty on scrap in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
