1987 (2) TMI 174

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ring the years 1976-77 and 1977-78 is as under :- 1976-77 Rs. 31,69,332.18 1977-78 Rs. 30,42,612.28 1978-79 Rs. 24,84,527.63  The appellants were holding L-4. Licence under Tariff Item 68 and were working under the exemption limit of Rs. 15,00,000/- under Notification 89/79-C.E., dated 1.3.1979. After 18.6.1977 to 12.4.1979, they did not obtain any Central Excise Licence. Since the appellants had cleared goods from 18.6.1977 to 31.3.1979 without obtaining Central Excise Licence and without payment of Central Excise duty, they were called upon to show cause as to why the Central Excise Duty of Rs. 1,94,053/- should not be demanded from them. In their reply to the show cause notice, the appellants inter alia contende....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... have exceeded the exemption limit. There would have been no violation attracting the penalty either. Shri Bedi argued that the word used was "payable" and not "actually paid". Even though the appellants have not paid the excise duty. It was urged that the duty payable should be reduced in computing the value of the clearances. There was no intention to evade payment of duty and the imposition of penalty was justified. 5. Shri H.L. Verma argued that the appellants have not paid the excise duty and in 1979 (4) E.L.T. (J 464) (Bata Shoe Co. Pvt. Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta and Others), the Calcutta High Court in paragraph 21 has observed as follows :- "Under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, exemption is gran....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....R. 1475 the Tribunal in the case of (M/s. Mark Electriks, Pune v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Bombay) following the earlier Ruling of the Tribunal in the case of Union Carbide of India v. C.C.E. Hyderabad [1983 (12) E.L.T. 548 (CEGAT) = 1983 E.C.R. 551] held that in view of the amendment of 1982 only the effective duty actually paid by the appellants after taking into account the exemption available under notification was the deductable from their cum-duty price to arrive at the assessable value of their goods. In 1985 (22) E.L.T. 615 (Tribunal) = 1985 ECR 770 (CEGAT) (M/s. Modi Vanaspati Mfg. Co. v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Meerut), the Tribunal has considered the import of the term "payable". In paragraph 27 ....