AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (8) TMI 603
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ew Delhi confirming the demand of Rs. 9,86,223 against the appellant under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000 under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of hypodermic syringes, during the relevant period 1988 to 1992, was selling the goods to wholesale dealers and was also selling a part of the goods....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in the relevant gate passes, with intention to evade central excise duty and proposing demand of differential duty on the basis of the actual price received from UNICEF and invoking larger period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act. Appellant resisted the demand on merits and on the ground of limitation. The Collector of Central Excise overruled this contention and confi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rupees. The contention of the appellant is that the price in US Dollars received from UNICEF had been disclosed at the time of filing monthly RT 12 Returns. The answer of Shri K. Srivastava, SDR is that while disclosing price in US Dollars, the appellant indicated in the invoices excisable value in Indian Rupees thereby making the department believe that the excisable value in Indian Rupees repre....