2001 (6) TMI 82

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellants are engaged in the manufacture of molasses. On 28-12-1994 the Central Excise (Preventive) staff from Ropar visited the factory premises of the appellant and scrutiny of the records revealed that the factory had cleared 4065.535 MTs of molasses at various rates during the period from March to May, 1994 on payment of duty as per bilateral agreement between the distillery units and the Pun .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y the appellant from Punjab Government had not been disclosed to the Department. A penalty of Rs. 66,171 was imposed under Section 11AC. The Additional Commissioner noted that the assessee had already debited some amount towards duty and therefore directed adjustment of present duty demand from the amount already debited during the period April, 1996 to November, 1998. The lower appellate authorit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... available there is no question of resorting to the value of comparable goods particularly when transaction value has not been rejected. We, therefore, hold that the differential duty demand is not sustainable and accordingly, set aside the demand and the penalty. Since we are allowing the appeal on merits, we are not recording any separate finding on limitation. 3. In the result, the impugned or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X