2005 (9) TMI 469

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Appellant. Shri Ganesh Havanur, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. -  Both these appeals arise from OIA Nos. 55 & 56/2003 dated 25-6-2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Bangalore who has reduced the duty amount to Rs. 86,490/- and also modified the penalty to this amount only in terms of Section 11AC of the CE Act. The penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has gone on to confirm the duty for a period beyond 5 years, which is not sustainable in law. He refers to the judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Parry & Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Trichy - 2002 (149) E.L.T. 1055 (Tri. - Chennai) which has clearly held that the 5 years period has to be only from the relevant date under proviso to Section 11A(1), clause (c), of C.E. Act. It is his submission th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on and examination of the facts, we notice that the appellants had not declared themselves as manufacturers nor they had been following the procedures. Therefore, in terms of the judgment rendered in the case of Parry & Co. Ltd. (supra), the 5 years period should be computed in terms of Section 11A(1), Clause (c) and not for a period beyond 5 years. The duty is to be computed from the date of serv....