1998 (9) TMI 598

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Directors of the manufacturer. 2. In the course of the hearing of the applications filed under 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, we felt that interests of justice and expeditious determination of the controversies in this case required a remand and therefore we waived requirement of pre-deposit and heard the appeal. 3. The dispute in this appeal relates to the period from 1-4-1994 to 30-8-1996. Appellant has been manufacturing Pressure Cookers and Pressure Pans and clearing the same for home consumption without following Central Excise procedures and without paying Central Excise Duty. On receipt of the information to the above effect, surveillance was mounted by Central Excise preventive staff. On 30-8-1996, Truck No.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed goods and demand of duty on the goods manufactured and cleared during the above period and proposing imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act and Rules 9(2), 173Q and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the manufacturer and under Rule 209-A of the rules on the Director. Notice also proposed charging interest on the amount of duty. 4. Appellants resisted the notice on the ground that they were unaware of the requirement to follow Central Excise procedures or to pay Central Excise duty. As soon as they came to know about it, an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs was deposited towards the arrears of the duty and therefore further action should not be pursued. 5. The Commissioner confirmed the Duty demand of Rs. 21,20,167....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AC and interest imposed under Section 11 AB is not sustainable. The appellants produced before the Commissioner a work sheet showing the amounts spent in each year for freight, payment of sales tax and the amount of Excise Duty. The Commissioner disallowed deduction on account of freight in the absence of evidence. He rejected the claim for deduction of sales tax on the ground that sales tax for the entire period was paid only in the September and October 1996 and sales tax had not paid on the respective due dates. He did not deal with the claim for deduction of element of duty in determining the assessable value. 7. According to the appellants, copies of the relevant invoices, goods receipts and sales tax challans had been produced....