2010 (11) TMI 913

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....C and another penalty of Rs.  20 lakhs under Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. Shri S. Murugappan, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants argues that the impugned goods are not excisable and that the same are being traded after importing from abroad. He further states that the appellants had taken a separate registration for their trading activity and that all the clearances have been made under invoices. As such, the duty demand is not sustainable on non-excisable goods on merit and also on the ground of time-bar, since it was open to the department to check invoices of the appellants and raise the demand within the normal period. Answering a query from the Bench, the learned Advocate agrees that the impu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ling with the contentions raised by the appellants. The appellants are importing AXXANOL-33C and they are processing the same to produce another product namely AXXANOL-33CD. The adjudicating Commissioner has noted that in the Annexure to the Registration Certificate taken by the appellants for trading their goods, there is no mention of the product AXXANOL-33CD and hence it is a clear case of suppression. The appellants are importing AXXANOL-33C, which is being diluted with lab ethanol and mineral spirit in the proportions 1:9, 1:24 and 1:49 as required by the customers. As such, the dilution is to extent of 9 times, 24 times and 49 times, as the case may be, according to requirement of the customers. The processed product is obviously bein....