TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. The appeal is against an order of the Commissioner of Central Excise demanding duty of over Rs. 41 lakhs from the appellants for the period September, 1997 to March, 1998 under Rule 96ZP (3) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. There is no representation for the appellants today. Their letter dated 10-2-2007 requesting for adjournment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. Nevertheless, they defaulted payment of duty. Department issued two show-cause notices demanding a total amount of duty of Rs. 41,07,364/- for the period September, 1997 to March, 1999 and also proposing penalty of equal amount. The appellants did not reply to any of these notices. However, their Consultant filed written submissions with the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at, in their earlier letters, the appellants had not raised the plea of time-bar but had only sought extension of time for clearing the dues. As regards the grievance raised by the appellants against ACP determination, learned Commissioner opined that, if so aggrieved, they could have resorted to appropriate remedy in law. With reference to the plea that the actual production be taken into account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ACP determined by the Commissioner was never challenged by party. Had they been aggrieved by such determination, on any ground whatsoever, whether it be based on actual production or type of furnace, they should have challenged the Commissioner s ACP order before the appropriate appellate forum. This was not done. Therefore, as rightly held by learned Commissioner, the appellants liability to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
