2011 (6) TMI 552

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t-company. Shri S.S. Katiyar, Authorised Representative (SDR) for the respondent Per: P.R. Chandrasekharan: This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No:  CEX.X1/JMJ/405/916/NSK/APPEALS/2003 dated 08/12/2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Nasik. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2.1 The appellants are a 100% EOU and th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... @ 29.44%). The case was adjudicated by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner who confirmed the duty demand vide order-in-original dated 25/09/2001 and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellants.  2.2 The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was disposed of by the impugned order by dismissing the appeal. Hence the appellant is before us. 3. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Indoworth India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur 2004 (170) ELT 46 (Tri.-LB). 5. We have carefully considered the submissions. Prior to its amendment effective from 01/03/2002, Notification No. 2/95-CE dated 04/01/1995 provided that the amount of duty has to be calculated @ 50% of each of the duties of customs on like goods imported i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce made to DTA prior to 01/03/2002. The ratio of the judgment applies squarely to the facts of the present case. In the instant case, we notice that the period for which duty has been demanded pertains to April 2000 to March 2001 i.e. prior to amendment of Notification 2/95-CE dated 04/01/1995 vide Notification No. 11/02-CE dated 01/03/2002. Therefore, the appellant was required to discharge duty ....