9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sident]. Briefly stated facts of this case are as follows :- 1.1 Appellants herein are quarrying stone from a mine leased out to them by District Collector in the State of Maharashtra. They are further converting the said stone in a workshop within the area of mines. A question has arisen whether conversion of stone into what is described as metal stone will be governed by exemption Notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... result in the manufacture of a new commodity. Even if a new commodity were to come into existence the umbrella of the notification would still be available. We thus, allow the appeal, set aside the lower order and grant consequential relief if any. 1.2 On the basis of the aforesaid finding the demand of Rs. 1,04,192.00 as confirmed by the adjudicating authority, namely C.C.E., Aurangabad will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned Advocate submits that in view of the aforesaid stay order of the Tribunal dated 8-7-1990 there should be no imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- in the present case. 3. Opposing the contentions, learned SDR Shri K. Srivastava submits that the stay order relied upon by the learned Advocate is not a final order. Further it is a stay order in another matter and cannot be relied upon for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve the Special Bench for getting their appeal heard on priority basis if the order of approval of classification list had got a recurring effect. Result of the said order, submits the learned SDR is that the appellants were duty bound to follow the classification list for the purpose of determining the duty on each consignment cleared by them of the said classification list. Since the appellants d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case, we reduce the penalty from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 5000/-; otherwise we uphold the finding that the appellants are liable to be imposed with penalty for the violation of the procedure under Rule 173F read with Rule 173G and that they are liable to penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(a). 5. In short, the demand of duty of Rs. 1,04,192/- is set aside and penalty is reduced to Rs. 5000/-. - - Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
