2012 (3) TMI 158

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Pathak, DR for the Respondent   Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa:   After hearing both the sides, we find that the demand of Rs. 55 lakhs approximately stands confirmed against the appellants who is engaged in the manufacture of Elastic Rail Clips. The appellants during the relevant period, i.e., 29.01.90 to 30.05.92 was availing benefit of exemption under Notification No.175/86, dtd. 01.03.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i Asthana appearing for the appellants fairly agrees that in terms of provisions of Section 11D, such collection of Excise duty from the customers but not paid to Revenue at the time of clearance of goods, is required to be deposited by them in terms of the provisions of Section 11D. He also fairly agrees that though the provisions of Section 11D were introduced w.e.f. 20.09.91, they would cover t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....; 4. However, he fairly agrees that the above dispute of quantification was not raised before the Commissioner in as much as the appellants were contesting the case on merits. He submits that now they have filed an application for additional evidence relating to quantum of duty paid by them and he submits that the matter be remanded for verification of above documentary evidence, now being prod....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of goods from their factory, in terms of Notification No.175/86 is not required to be included in the total demand, in as much as that already stands paid by the appellants. However, both sides agree that no evidence to that account was produced by the appellant before the lower Adjudicating Authority. Ld. Advocate submits that after a lapse of more than 11 years, they may not be in a position t....