2004 (1) TMI 483

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - The appellants in these appeals are manufacturers of excisable goods falling under Chapter 39 of the C.E.T.A. Schedule. During the period July, 2000 to March 2001, they had adopted the cost construction method of valuation of the goods, for the purpose of payment of Central Excise duty. One of the elements included in the assessable .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ommissioner (Appeals). However, before the appellate authority, they did not contest duty liability. Their challenge was only in respect of the penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not sustain the challenge. Hence these appeals before us. 2. Heard both sides. The Chartered Accountant representing the appellants submitted that any penalty could not be sustained on the basis of the finding .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tc., had not been raised against the party in the show cause notices issued to them by the department. This submission has not been contested before us. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the appellants had paid the differential duty soon after they realised their mistake of taking 6.06% of cost of production as notional profit instead of 15% effective from 1-7-2000, for inclusion in the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X