9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sharma, Member (T)]. In the impugned Order No. 19/94, dated 23-5-1994, the learned Collector confirmed demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 8,63,997/- on cement articles manufactured and cleared during the period from 2-1-1993 to 15-3-1993. A penalty of Rs. 80,000/- was also imposed on the appellants. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants have filed the captioned appeal. 2. The fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacturer is or is not the owner of the goods is not determinative of the liability holding that appellant was the manufacturer and the demand of Central Excise duty was confirmed and penalty was imposed. 3. Arguing the case for the appellants Shri Kuppusamy, learned Consultant submits that he is arguing the case only on two limited issues. The first issue is limitation and the second issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Consultant further submits that the appellant was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 59/90, inasmuch as the cement articles manufactured by them was supplied to the railways. He submits that the site for manufacture of the articles was allotted by the railways. He submits that a number of letters were written by the railway authorities showing that the site was allotted by them for manu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidence on record as also the case law cited and relied upon by the consultant for the appellants. We note that intimation about manufacture of cement articles supplied to railways was given by the appellants to the Central Excise authorities concerned. Thus, there was no mis-statement of facts or suppression of information so as to invoke the larger period. In the instant case and the entire dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his decision is applicable to the facts of this case of the appellant. In view of the fact that the railways also intimated to the Central Excise authorities that the site was allotted by them for manufacture of the cement articles, thus, on this count also, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of the Notification. 9. Thus, on both counts, the impugned order is not sustainable in law, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
