2001 (7) TMI 801

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. Appeal permitted to be retained. 2. Duty of Rs. 42.55 crores approximately and penalty of Rs. 46.55 crores have been demanded and imposed on the finding of the Commissioner that the applicant manufactured a turbo alternator on which it did not pay the appropriate duty. 3. The applicant entered into a contract with GVK Industries for setti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... not goods liable to excise duty. 4. When confronted with this judgment the Commissioner says that he has found that another manufacturer, Birla Periclase, removed a turbo alternator from the site of its manufacture. He therefore concludes that it is possible that turbo alternator could be removed as such. Relying on the observation of the Supreme Court in Triveni Engineering Industries Ltd. v. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... CCE. The second objection is that if the Commissioner finds that the facts of Birla Periclase, is identical, then the turbo alternator considered by the Supreme Court has to be distinguished with the turbo alternator under consideration or with the Birla Periclase. The Supreme Court in one case found the turbo alternator not movable as such. The Commissioner has found the turbo alternator of Birla .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X