9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - This Appeal arises against order-in-original dated 12-1-1990 passed by Additional Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad confirming the duty amount of Rs. 79,013.10 under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules read with proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act and also imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000/- under Rule 173Q of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore it was contended by the appellants that there was no question of clandestine removal or for extending the larger period as the Department had granted them licence and had approved the plan for erection of steel tank for storage of molasses. 3. However, the Additional Collector rejected their pleas and confirmed the demand. Ld. Counsel submits that the steel tank was constructed by cement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd he had granted them permission for storage of molasses in the steel tank to be manufactured by them. It can be seen from the letter dated 7-11-1984 about the approval of the ground plan. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the appellants clandestinely manufactured and got erected the steel tank. Therefore the proviso to Section 11A or Rule 9(a) cannot be invoked in the present ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
