ORDER
J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. The appellants are a Public Sector Corporation manufacturing Petroleum product. Rates of duty on certain goods were raised vide Finance Bill, 1996. The appellants however continued to clear the products at the old rates up to 16-8-1996. They however paid the differential duty on being pointed out by the department on 20-8-96. Show cause notice was issued on 4-2-97 demanding the duty and alleging liability to penalty. The Commissioner passed orders appropriating the amount already paid towards the duty demanded of Rs. 4,47,76,123/-. He imposed penalties under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and demanded interest in terms of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Penalty of Rs. 20,000/- was also imposed under Rules 9(2), 52A and 173Q(i). The present appeal is filed against this order. They have secured the permission of the empowered committee.
2. Shri D.P. Bhave submits that the provisions of Sections 11AB and 11AC were incorporated in the Act, only on 20-9-96 and therefore could not be applied to contravention which had occurred prior to that date. We accept this point and set aside the orders of imposition of penalty and recovery of interest under these provisions.
3. Counsel also contested penalty of Rs. 20,000/-. He submits that Rule 9(2) is not attracted and that Rule 173Q(l)(a) also had no application. We find that the Rule 173F puts the burden of determination of the correct duty payable on the goods to be cleared. In the present case it is not contested that the goods were cleared at a lower rate. Such removal would amount to contravention of the aforesaid provision bringing into effect the relevant provisions of Rule 173Q. We do not see any infirmity in the orders imposing penalty under Rule 173Q. We also find that the quantum thereof is of token proportion and do not think it necessary to give any further relief.
4. The appeal is decided in these terms.
5. Stay application also stands disposed of.