9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 1. We have heard Sri S.K. Mishra for the appellant. Sri Abhishek Anand and Sri Nishant Mishra appear for the respondent. 2. This Central Excise Appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the Act) is directed against the order dated 11.02.2005, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench-A, New Delhi in Appeal No. E/1090/04-NB(A), by which th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the relevant time, read with Section 11 AC of the Act. He also demanded interest on the confirmed amount of duty under Section 11 AB of the Act. The demand of Rs.49,78,400/- and the proposal of confiscation of land, building, plant & machinery etc., were dropped. The duty and penalty were demanded on the ground that the 'Line Rejection Register', was neither claimed as a declared document under R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consumed by the assessee, and for the year 1999-2000, it was only 3169, out of 411861 CPT's consumed. As the rejections were mentioned in the record maintained by the assessee. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-department submits that the assessee was required to maintain a register of rejections under Rule 173 G (5), to be produced by him on demand. The register was not produced be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejected items in the process of manufacturing. It is also not stated that the Line Rejection Register was not a reliable document, or that rejection were to be maintained in any other form by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the number of rejections were insignificant as compared to total procurement of CPTs. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no error in the order of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
