Per Justice U.L. Bhat :

The dispute in the appeal relates to the period from 17.8.87 to 8.3.89. Appellant was filing price lists during a part of the period and during the remaining period appellant was following Invoice Price Procedure under Rule 173-C (11) of the Central Excise Rules. Appellant was collecting 1% of the price towards transit insurance charges but the charges actually paid to the insurer were much less. This was admitted by one of the partners of the appellant in his statement before the Superintendent of Central Excise. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued deciding the above facts, proposing demand of difference between the insurance charges collected from buyers and charges paid to the insurer and proposing imposition of penalty. Appellant resisted the notice on the ground of limitation. Overruling this contention, the Additional Collector confirming the demand imposed penalty of Rs. 1,500/-.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the claim of the department is not sustainable on merits. Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, JDR pointed out that no contention on merits was raised in reply to the show cause notice. Since there is no dispute on facts, we al