9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... These two appeals filed by M/s. BNK Engine Parts (P) Ltd. and M/s. Pilot Liners Pvt. Ltd. involve a common question of law and hence both these appeals are taken up together for disposal. Appellants have challenged the imposition of penalty only and are not contesting the duty demanded from them. 2. Shri A. Vijayaraghavan, learned Consultant for the appellants while reiterating the grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted by them. In this connection he invited my attention to the judgment of the, CEGAT Delhi in the case of Electrolux Kelvinator Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur reported in [2001 (134) E.L.T. 675 (T) = 2001 (47) RLT 399] wherein it has been held that penalty under Rule 173Q is not justified in a case involving short levy on account of interpretation of Section 4 of the CEA, 1944 for determination of ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the decision of CEGAT, Kolkata Bench in the case of Goenka Woollen Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Shillong reported in [2001 (135) E.L.T. 873 (T) = 2001 (44) RLT 308] wherein penalty imposed under Rule 173Q was set aside as the issue related to bona fide dispute about interpretation of exemption notification. In view of the above decisions, he submitted that no penalty was imposable on the appellants and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the offence was not of the nature mentioned under Rules 173Q(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Rules ibid and the appellants have not contested the duty demanded from them. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal, in the case of Electrolux Kelvinator Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur, M/s. Samtel India Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur, M/s. Punjab Worsted Spg. Mills v. CCE, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
