2017 (2) TMI 437

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeal is filed by Revenue against the Order-in-Original No.20/2006 dated 11.10.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Calicut. The respondent is manufacturer of PSC poles classifiable under Central Excise Tariff 6807.90. Since the respondent removed the goods without payment of excise duty even after crossing the SSI emption limit of Rs. 1/- crore as specified under Notification No.8/2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....DR, however, none appeared for the respondent. 3. The learned DR while reiterating the grounds advanced by the Revenue, submitted that the excise duty demand has been confirmed in the impugned order by upholding the allegation of suppression on the part of the respondent and invoking the extended period under Section 11A, consequently, mandatory penalty under Section 11AC should have been imposed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d the department for taking out the registration. Further, at the stage of investigation itself, they had deposited an amount of Rs. 30 lakhs which covers more than the duty liability. Accordingly, they have requested for waiver of penalty. There is merit in this contention and I am inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the noticee in view of their conduct subsequent to the detection of the cas....