2004 (2) TMI 482

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Narasimha Murthy, ld. JDR appeared for the Revenue. 3. Shri Gaikwad, ld. Counsel for the appellants pleaded that in this case duty has been demanded and confirmed by the Commissioner on patterns/jigs and fixtures, etc., manufactured by the appellants which were used for manufacture of C.I/Steel casting in the factory of the appellant. The appellant had issued invoices for the cost of these jigs patterns, etc., to their customers and recovered from the customers the development cost along with the sale tax who had placed purchase order with the appellant for supply of the excisable goods. During the year 1994-95, the jigs patterns, etc., manufactured by the appellants and intended for use within the factory of production were fully....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lty of  Rs. 25,05,075/- under Rule 173Q(i) read with Section 11AC. The Order does not make it clear which part of penalty is under Rule 173Q and which part is under Section 11AC. Section 11AC is not applicable for the goods cleared prior to 28-9-96 and penal interest under Section 11AB has to be made applicable on the clearance of the goods only after 28-9-96. He relied on the following decisions in support of his contention :- (a)        Punjab Recorder Ltd. v. CCE [2001 (132) E.L.T. 41] (b)        Agarwal Pharmaceuticals v. CCE [2002 (146) E.L.T. 190] (c)        Monica Electronics Ltd. v. CCE [2001 (134) E.L.T. 454] (d....