1999 (7) TMI 171

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , Member (T)]. The issue involved in this appeal filed by the Cipta Coated Steels Ltd. is whether penalty is imposable on them under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. 2. Shri Pragyan Sharma, learned Advocate submitted that M/s. Magadh Enterprises had fabricated and done the structural work in their premises. Though the duty has been demanded from Magadh Enterprises besides imposing pe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ecision in the case of Elecon Engg., referred to above, is not applicable in the present matter as in that case the structural work was of immovable nature right from the beginning whereas in the present matter structures have been fabricated separately and subsequently they have been placed by constructing shed and accordingly they were movable goods liable to Central Excise duty. He also referre .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n has dealt with the excisable goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under the Act. The onus of proof is on the Department to prove that the appellants knew or had reason to believe that the goods are liable to confiscation. The onus has not been discharged by the Department. Learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants, has also relied upon the Tribun .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X