1999 (9) TMI 403

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ia, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - The appeal is against the order of the Additional Collector, Central Excise, Rajkot confirming the demand of duty issued to the appellants and imposing a penalty under rule 173Q. 2. The Advocate for the appellant contends that the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of cement blocks, cement pipes and cement collar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. C.C.E., Madras - 1994 (74) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.) = 1995 Supp (l) SCC 50; C.C.E., Hyderabad v. M/s. Chemphar Drugs and Liniments - 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.) = (1989) 2 SCC 123; Padmini Products v. C.C.E., Bangalore - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 (S.C.) = (1989) 4 SCC 275 and the decision of the Tribunal in Arva Cabinet House v. Collector of Central Excise - 1989 (4 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he fact emphasised by the Additional Collector, that the appellant earlier was paying duty, is also significant. In these circumstances, it is not possible to agree that there was no intention to evade duty. On the contrary, the appellant had not furnished the details specified by law, which were necessary before it availed of the notifications. The judgment of the Supreme Court cited by the appel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X