TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ranted for the financial year 2005-06. In the show cause notice, there is no whisper regarding the details of similar permission for the financial year 2005-06 - In view of the permission granted, being permission dated 18/07/2005 for procurement of 05lakhs 14” size Electronic guns for the financial year 2005-06, apparently, there is no violation of any provisions or the condition of the certificate in question. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/781-782/2008-EX[SM] - FO/70781-70782/2018 - Dated:- 18-8-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Appearance: Shri Kartikeya Narain, Advocate (Amicus-curie) for Appellants Shri Mohamad Altaf, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for Respondent Per: Anil Choudh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bad to obtain excisable goods from M/s Samtel Electron Devices during the financial year 2005-06, as follows: Electron guns 14 size 500000 Nos., Electron guns 20 size 75000 Nos. Electron guns- 21 size 100000 Nos. 4. Details of procurement was sought from M/s Samtel Color Ltd. and from the details furnished. It appeared to revenue that so far certificate for procurement dated 08/07/2004 is concerned, they procured as follows: SI. No. Type of Electron Gun Quantity permitted as Per Certificate Quantity Actually Supplied Financial Year-2004-05 Financial Year-2005-06 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... permitted by certificate dated 08/07/2004 only up to 31/03/2005. So far the clearance of 247324 nos. of 14 size Electron guns has been made, the same is violation of the granted certificate. Accordingly, vide show cause notice dated 04th July, 2006 Central Excise duty ₹ 40,52,509/- was proposed to be recovered from M/s Samtel Electron Devices with penalty and further penalty was also proposed on M/s Samtel Color Ltd. under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The said SCN was adjudicated on contest by the Additional Commissioner and the proposed demand was confirmed along with equal amount of penalty under Section 11 AC of the Act read with Rule 25 of CER, 2002. Further, a penalty of ₹ 10,00,000/- was also imposed on appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
