9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent. ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order for demand of interest under Section 11AB of the Act and for imposition of penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant are manufacturer of super enameled copper wire. A search was conducted in the premises of the appellants on 28-11-1996 certain incr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification of the demand by giving benefit of SSI exemption to the appellant thereafter to pass appropriate order in accordance with the law. In remand proceedings, the adjudicating authority gave benefit of SSI exemption and reduced the demand to the tune of Rs. 13,15,273/-. As the appellant has already paid a sum of Rs. 11,80,000/- before issuance of show cause notice, same was appropriated and r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmits that adjudicating authority has imposed penalty under Rule 173Q ibid without specifying which clause of Rule 173Q was not complied with by the appellant. Therefore, penalty is not imposable in the light of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amrit Foods [2005 (190) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.)]. 3. On the other hand, learned AR supported the impugned order and submits that the offence o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Another issue arises from the arguments advanced by both the sides is of imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q of the Erstwhile Rules. I have gone through the provisions of Rule 173Q wherein for certain contravention by the assessee, the goods are to be held liable for confiscation and thereafter penalties are imposable. I have gone through the impugned order wherein the goods are not held liable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
