9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nting to Rs. 64,85,956.00 should not be recovered under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, why interest at 20% on the duty so claimed should not be recovered under Section 11AB of the Act and why penal action should not be taken against them for violation of the provisions contained in Rule 173Q of the Rules. The appellant disputed the claim made in the show cause notice. After considering the contentions, Commissioner by order-in-original No. 22/CE/99, dated 31-3-1999 confirmed the demand made in the notice, directed payment of interest as claimed in the notice and also imposed penalty of a like sum under Section 11AC of the Act read with Rule 173Q of the Rules. This order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of operation of the order passed by this Tribunal. Since there was no order of stay, the Commissioner was bound to follow the law laid down by this Tribunal. As an authority subordinate to this Tribunal, the Commissioner was clearly in error in denying the benefit of that decision to the manufacturer in this case. Now the Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue reported in 1999 (112) E.L.T. 353 and this Tribunal's order stands confirmed, we direct the Commissioner to requantify the tax liability of the appellant. This order will deal with the first point raised by the learned counsel representing the appellant in his favour. 4. The second point raised by the learned counsel was that the HDPE and PVC pipes manufactured by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to take liquid from one point to another. If it is used for taking water from one point and at the other end Sprinkler is added, the Sprinkler will work depending on the water head. That by itself will not make the pipes part of the SIS. So, we overrule the contention raised by the learned counsel that the HDPE pipes manufactured by the appellant are part of the Sprinkler Irrigation System. 5. Appellant furnished details regarding the manufacturing cost incurred in production of HDPE pipes. In arriving at the manufacturing cost, cost of raw material, cost of powder and fuel, labour charges, interest, administrative and other charges were reckoned. To the manufacturing cost so arrived at, they added 10% margin by way of profit. By doing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
