2004 (8) TMI 447

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lkar, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. This appeal is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, who has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 2,62,336.95 against appellants on the ground that they manufactured barge i.e. Pontoon named AF-BP-ROSE and also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- upon them. 2. We have heard both sides. We find .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the present impugned order, the Commissioner had passed an order in 1988 confirming demand of duty and imposing penalty, which was challenged by the appellants before the Tribunal which by its Final Order No. E/4/98-B, dated 16-12-1997 in Appeal No. E/3205/88B remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for recording the findings on the issue of marketability of the barge. The present order h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , the Tribunal by the Final Order No. E/1461/97B, dated 10-10-1997 in appeal No. E/1928/88B has held that the appellants are only the suppliers of raw materials and the work was carried out by M/s. Bright Engineers and therefore, the appellants are not the manufacturers of the barge. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner demanding duty on the barge from the appellants and allowed th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X