2010 (9) TMI 931

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... his appeal against the impugned order whereby the demand is confirmed from the period December 2000 to September 2005 by invoking extended period on the ground of suppression of facts and penalty imposed on under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E., Bhubaneshwar v. IFGL Refractories Lt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... me Court in the case of IFGL Refractories Ltd. Therefore, the allegation of suppression of facts intend to evade duty is not sustainable. In view of the earlier decision of the Tribunal in favour of the manufacturer. The demand beyond normal period is not sustainable and penalty under Section 11AC is also not sustainable. 3. The contention of the Revenue is that the appellant had never disclosed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aside. The appellants are liable to pay duty and interest for the normal period of limitation, the same will be re-calculated. In respect of the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC as we held that there is no suppression of facts with intend to evade duty. Therefore, imposition of penalty under Section 11AC is not sustainable and set aside. The appeal is allowed as indicated above. (Dictate .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X