2006 (2) TMI 575

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eptember, 1996. 2. The facts leading to imposition of penalty are that the appellant was treating the sale price of the yarn as assessable value and discharging duty on that basis. Upon coming to know that there was some change in the valuation law requiring inclusion of transport cost in the assessable value, the appellant paid the differential duty and wrote a letter on 31-3-99 to the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division-ll, Allahabad. Thus, the duty short paid was paid in 1999. 3. Two and half years later, a show cause notice dated 10-8-2001 was issued by the Central Excise authorities proposing to impose penalty on the appellant along with interest. The appellant replied on 24-8-2001 stating that there was no ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Accordingly, I pass the following order :- ORDER In the circumstances, I uphold the impugned Order-in-Original No. MP-DEM/80/2001/53 of 2001 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority being proper and legal and reject the Appeal No. 3-CE/APPL/ALLD/2002 filed by the appellants." 4. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that in the facts of the present case, there was no evidence regarding intention to evade payment of duty, and therefore, recovery under proviso to Section 11A and imposition of penalty were not sustainable. It is also the learned Counsel's contention that no penalty can be imposed, as the duty remained paid before the issue of show cause notice. He also relied on the decision of this Tribun....