2007 (7) TMI 679

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....944 with option for redemption against payment of a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The Commissioner also imposed penalty equal to duty on the assessee under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and Rules 9(2), 173Q and 226 of the Central Excise Rules. The assessee's appeal is against the above order of the Commissioner. The contention of the Revenue, raised in Appeal No. E/263/01, is that the adjudicating authority erred in granting the benefit of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act to the assessee while computing the demand of duty. 2. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we note that the assessee never questioned excisability of the goods before the lower authority. In the present appeal, however, they have made a f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....From the record of evidence in this case, it appears that the appellants admitted that they had collected additional amounts from their buyers and had not paid duty thereon. They also admitted diversion of raw materials without payment of duty. The assessee claimed before the adjudicating authority the benefit of Section 4(4)(d) (ii) of the Act in respect of the cables (seconds). They themselves worked out the deductions and submitted a worksheet to the Commissioner covering the period of dispute. This worksheet mentioned a total amount of duty of Rs. 9,00,760.63 as payable by the assessee. Ld. Commissioner accepted this worksheet after holding that the assessee was eligible for the benefit of Section 4(4)(d)(ii). However, his order demande....