9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise, Bombay why the duty of central excise of about Rs. 38 lakhs should not be demanded and/or recovered as provided under proviso to sub-section (1) of section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and why penalty should not be imposed on them under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the duty demand in the sum of more than Rs. 34 lakhs and imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned counsel for the respondent on a judgment of this Court in AMCO Batteries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore - 2003 (4) SCC 41 to support the impugned judgment. The contention urged on behalf of the appellant before the Bench was that the decision in the case of AMCO was being frequently cited by the assessee before authorities to contend that when a party is entitled to get bene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e no question of suppression of fact or invocation of the extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A. In fact it has not been so held In AMCO Batteries decision. Having regard to the facts and circumstances noticed in the earlier paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 and in addition to the appellant therein being entitled to get the benefit of Modvat scheme it was observed in para 10 that there wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
