2002 (2) TMI 184

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iled by the appellants against the impugned order-in-original dated 19-1-2001 vide which the Commissioner has confirmed the duty of Rs. 55,44,370/- and imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC and also of Rs. 15,00,000/- under Rule 173Q and 210 of the Central Excise Rules, besides ordering the payment of interest under Section 11AC of the Act. 2. The appellants are a registered de .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a show cause notice and after getting their reply, the Commissioner confirmed the duty and imposed the penalties, as detailed in the impugned order. 3. We have heard both sides and gone through the facts on record. 4. So far as the confirmation of the duty demand is concerned, the correctness of the same has not been disputed before us. What has been challenged before us by the learn .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lty under Section 11AC can be imposed where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short levied or short paid. Similarly, the payment of interest under Section 11AB can be demanded only where any duty of excise has not been levied or has been short levied or short paid. But in the instant case, such has not been the position. There was no short payment of duty by the appellants .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X