2010 (6) TMI 370

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....p;     Shri S.M. Vaidya, JDR, for the Appellant.  [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - In this appeal of the Revenue, the appellant wants the respondent to be penalised under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The learned DR submits that the respondent as an SSI unit had crossed the prescribed maximum limit of exemption after 28-9-1996 and, therefore, the pe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... had not obtained registration with the department or followed the Central Excise procedure including filing of MODVAT declaration. 3. We have considered the grounds of the appeal and the cross-objections and have also considered the submissions of the learned JDR. The demand of duty as confirmed by the original authority and upheld by the first appellate authority is for the period 1995-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-9-1996, the date on which the provision was enacted. It is this part of the appellate Commissioner's order which was reviewed. In the present appeal of the Revenue, the only ground raised by the appellant is that, as the offence was committed by the party during the year 1996-97, Section 11AC is applicable. In this connection, it has been averred that the assessee would have crossed the exemption....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nue. In other words, no case for imposing a penalty under Section 11AC on the respondent has been made out by the Revenue. There is no prayer in this appeal of the Revenue for imposing a penalty on the respondent under Rule 173Q. In the circumstances, the Revenue's appeal cannot be allowed. 4. We have also considered the cross-objections filed by the respondent. Both the lower authorities....