9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order per : Lajja Ram, Member (T)]. In this appeal filed by M/s. U.P. State Electricity Board an undertaking of the Uttar Pradesh Government, the matter relates to the duty liability in respect of the excisable commodity 'Electricity' during the relevant time. This matter had come up earlier before the Tribunal and the Tribunal under order Nos. E/280 to 292/94-D, dated 27-5-1994 had remanded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of decisions of the Tribunal that the benefit of Notification No. 51/78 was available in similar circumstances. He particularly referred to the decision in Appeal No. E/384/91-D Final Order No. 13/2000-D, dated 1-12-1999 [2000 (118) E.L.T. 699 (T)] and in Appeal No. E/3145/92-D Final Order No. 643/99-D, dated 2-7-1999. He also submitted that the observations of the Tribunal in the order of reman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances of the case, the penalty amount was also justified as the duty evaded was above Rs. 80,00,000/- and only a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- had been imposed. 4. We have carefully considered the matter. We find that the benefit of Notification No. 51/78-C.E. was available subject to the fulfilment of the conditions prescribed therein. When the matter had come up earlier before the Tribunal, the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred to by the learned advocate has to be seen in the light of the facts in the present case. The facts have clearly been analysed by the Tribunal in the earlier order. We respectfully agree with the same. As regards the adjustment for time-barred period and over-lapping demand, the Commissioner has discussed this in detail and as per chart given in para 6, the demand of Rs. 25,64,514.26 has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
