2017 (2) TMI 1167

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... case is that a show-cause notice was issued demanding duty on Dies as well as on Forging. The demand was confirmed vide Orders-in-Original No. 08/CEX/99 dated 19.01.1999 and No. 84/CEX/2001 dated 20.11.2001 respectively. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. P-I/264 & 265/02 dated 24.4.2002 upheld the said Orders-in-Original confirming the duty on the Design/Drawing charges and imposed the penalty and also confirmed interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and rejected the appeal. The appellant filed appeal before CESTAT whereby Order No. CB/194-197/WZB/2002 dated 31.10.2002 held that duty demanded is justified in the law, however, the provisions of Section 11AB were not applicable for the full period cover....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rest of Rs. 79,887/- was proposed under Section 11AA and also proposed to impose the penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and under Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dated 30.12.2005 confirmed the recovery of interest of Rs. 79,887/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- under the provisions of Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide Order-in-Appeal dated 10.4.2006 upheld the Order-in-Original. Therefore, the appellants are before us. 3. None appeared on behalf of the appellant. However, in the grounds of appeal, the appellant submitted that the demand of interest was raise....