2008 (1) TMI 92

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es during the period July, 1999 to March, 2002. After due process of law, the Deputy Commissioner, Tiruppur Division demanded an amount of Rs.61,673/- under Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act and imposed equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC.  Interest due on the duty confirmed was also demanded. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals), Coimbatore upheld the order of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... p of machinery on which credit was availed. Therefore, the impugned demand and the penalty are sustainable. 2. I have carefully considered the case records and the submissions made by both parties. The demand in question has been raised for the duty due on the goods removed. There is no dispute that the goods removed were metal scrap and the scrap of used machinery. As per Note 8(a) to Section X .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ind that it is the onus of the department to establish that the duty is payable on any item cleared without payment of duty by a process. In the instant case, there is only an allegation that the appellants had removed the goods on which duty was payable. The assessee engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn and not in the manufacture of metal or metal goods. In the circumstances, I find that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X