2002 (1) TMI 830

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Appellant. Shri B.B. Sarkar, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. -  The appeal arises out of the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai confirming the duty demand of Rs. 19,469.77 by applying the extended period of limitation against the appellant and imposing penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the appellant. 2. The appellan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... there was a calculation mistake of Rs. 5,581/-, and that no penalty was warranted due to the bona fide belief in the mind of the appellant, was rejected by the adjudicating authority resulting in the demand confirmation and imposition of penalty. Hence this appeal. 3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. 4. We accept the contention of the Counsel for the appellant t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the demand for duty of Rs. 2,142.90 which is the duty that was payable within the six months period on cut leads. 6. We are now left to consider the sustainability of the duty demand on the remaining four items. We find that the Commissioner has held that the value of different items which form part of the finished goods is includible and we accept this finding as reflecting the correct l....