GOLD PLAST Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal along with stay application has been filed by the appellants against the order in original Sl. No. 8/2001 (Commr.), dated 3 -4 -2001 by which he has demanded a duty of Rs. 1,26,10,770/ - under the provisions of Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the period from 23 -6 -1995 to 31 -3 -2000, besides imposing penalty of Rs. 15,00,000/ - on the appellants under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules for the period from 23 -6 -95 to 28 -9 -96. There is also imposition of penalty of Rs. 67,15,480/ - on the appellants under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q for the period from 29 -9 -96 to 16 -11 -98 and yet another penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/ - under Rule 173Q for the period from 17 -11 -98 to 31 -3 -2000.

(2.) Both the sides in this case argued the matter on the stay petition only and after their arguments, the matter was reserved for recording order. On going through the case records, prima facie we are of the view that there are certain infirmities in the impugned order in regard to invocation of the proviso to Section 11A for demand of duty in one of the show cause notices vis -a -vis the order impugned and also imposition of combined penalty under Section 11AC and 173Q as could be seen from the following observations :

(3.) The brief facts of this case are that the appellants herein are manufacturers of plastic multi -purpose stands using polypropylene as the raw material. They have been registered with the Central Excise department during November, 1998 and filed a Classification/Declaration for their product namely plastic Multi -purpose stands by classifying them under chapter sub -heading 3926.90 of CETA, 1985 mentioning duty liability as 5% claiming exemption in terms of Notification No. 5/98, dated 2 -6 -1998. The officers of the Department verified the manufacturing process of the appellants and it was found that the appellant manufactured plastic items as under :