2001 (5) TMI 520

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Appellant. Shri S. Kannan, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. -  The impugned order is challenged by which duty demand of Rs. 5,15,529/- has been confirmed under Rule 9(2) read with sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has also been imposed on the appellants under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1-3-1989 which was in force up to 28-2-1993 and further continued by another Notification No. 57/93, dated 20-3-1993. The period in dispute is 1991-92 and 1992-93. However, the then Collector (now Commissioner) overruled their contention that there is no manufacturing activity and held that the recording done by the appellants on the magnetic tape in the pan cake form constitute manufacture and th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation No. 74/90, dated 20-3-1990 referred to in the order can be read as 87/89, dated 1-3-1989. The learned Counsel submits that such corrigendum is not legal and proper for the reason that Notification No. 87/89, dated 1-3-1989 was never considered and what was considered was only Notification No. 74/90, dated 20-3-1990 and therefore, it cannot be considered as corrigendum and as such the impugne....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ria applicability to Notification No. 87/89, dated 1-3-1989. Therefore, the corrigendum, issued can be said to be in order. He further submitted that the demands are not barred by time as the appellants have cleared the goods without payment of duty. 5. In counter the learned Counsel submitted that the notification itself shows that both the notifications are independently worded. Corrigen....