9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pes and tubes, which attracted duty at different rates, depending upon whether they were made from imported iron and steel or indigenously produced iron and steel. During the period from June to August 1988, the appellant removed its produce after paying duty at the rates applicable to pipes and tubes produced from indigenously manufactured iron and steel. A show cause notice was issued on 2-7-93 alleging that the record of the assessee showed that it had been receiving imported iron and steel and the pipes attracted higher rate of duty as they were produced from imported materials. The appellant resisted that demand but failed in adjudication. When that matter came up in appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant did not contest t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Amrit Foods v. C.C.E., U.P. - 2005 (190) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.). We may read the relevant observation in that judgment: "5. The Revenue has preferred an appeal from the order of the Tribunal setting aside the imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal has set aside the order of the Commissioner on the ground that neither the show cause notice nor the order of the Commissioner specified which particular clause of Rule 173Q has been allegedly contravened by the appellant. We are of the view that the finding of the Tribunal is not correct. Rule 173Q contains six clauses the contents of which are not same. It was, therefore, necessary for the assessee to be put on notice as to the exact nature of contr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re in agreement with the contention of the revenue. The short question in the present case was whether the fact of production of the pipes from imported goods was disclosed to revenue. Duty paying documents, namely, gate passes and classification declaration which is the declaration relating to rate of duty, both did not disclose the source of raw materials, while the rate of duty depended entirely on that fact. In this factual situation, the revenue is right in contending that there is deliberate suppression of facts, which attracts penalty. We, therefore, uphold the imposition of penalty. However, taking all the facts and circumstances into account, penalty is reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only). 9. With regard to the demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
