PURE DRINKS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute centers around the question whether, in the facts of the case, it is Rule 57F(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 or whether it is Rule 57F(5) thereof which is applicable.

(2.) WE have heard Shri J.S. Agarwal, ld. Advocate for the assessee and Shri M.M. Dube, ld. JDR for the Department.

(3.) APPELLANTS are engaged in the manufacture of aerated waters falling under Chapter 22 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. They were also availing of Modvat credit of duty paid on glass bottles received by them as inputs. They were served with a Show Cause Notice dated 4 -3 -1997 asking them to show cause as to why Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 42,78,164.20 should not be demanded on the value of clearances of glass bottles sold by them as such and on sale of waste and scrap of glass bottles not paid during the period 1 -4 -1992 to 19 -10 -1995 and why penalty should not be imposed. By the impugned order, the Commissioner, Central Excise, New Delhi confirmed the duty demand and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under Rule 173Q read with Rule 9(2). The invoking of the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) was also upheld.