2004 (6) TMI 44

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ability does not arise hence the demand of duty is not correct and not sustainable in law? (II)       Whether the order of imposition of penalties can be sustained when the penalties were proposed to be imposed merely on the allegation that glass bottles were sold during the period in question on which Modvat Credits were already availed of and the said allegation has been set aside by the Hon'ble Tribunal? (III)      Whether the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT), for short impose penalty on an assessee after holding that the charge of evasion of duty, against the assessee had not been proved and the liability for duty itself do not arise? (IV) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on higher rate as compared to the purchase rate, which indicated that the glass bottles sold, were in good condition and were of usable nature. It was further alleged that neither the duty was paid nor Modvat credit was reversed on clearance of these motivated glass bottles. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee to explain as to why duty be not demanded on the glass bottles sold. The Commissioner demanded duty of Rs. 19,54,994.00 under Rule 9(2), read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act from the assessee. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 19,61,566/- under Rules 9(2) 52A, 173Q and 226. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 3 lacs on Shri Ashish Sethi, Director of the Company. Aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before the Trib....