9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 970X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent ORDER PER: D.M. MISRA This is an appeal filed against OIO No. No.36/CEX/2008, dt.31.12.2008, passed by the CCE Nasik. 2. This is second round of litigation before this Tribunal. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 42 and 92 of Central Excise Act, 1944. Alleging that they availed excess dedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... valent to the said duty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. The learned Advocate for the Appellant submits that this Tribunal has remanded the matter to the Adjudicating authority for re-calculation of the duty, taking into account the quantity discount not passed on to the customer by adding the same to the price. There is no direction on penalty. Hence, the order of the Adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal directed the Adjudicating authority to re-calculate the demand by adding the quantum of discount not passed on to sale price of the goods. Since suppression of facts has been confirmed and the demand for the extended period of limitation has been upheld, therefore, we do not see any reason in the argument of the learned Advocate that penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
