9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (12) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent. [Order per : G.P. Agarwal, Member (J)].- This is an application by the appellants/applicant purporting to be under sub-section (2) of Section 35C of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to amend the Final Order No. 177/94-C, dated 28-6-1994 [1994 (73) E.L.T. 91 (T)] passed in Appeal No. E/702/93-C filed by the present applicant against the Collector of Central Excise, Raipu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sunderson (Minerals) Ltd. v. The Superintendent (Preventive), Central Excise, Indore [1995 (75) E.L.T. 273 (M.P.) there was no scope for imposing any penalty since the appellants were under a bona fide belief that their activity of crushing of lime-stone did not amount to manufacture. He submitted that the Tribunal while passing the said Final Order considered the arguments relating to the meani ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2) E.L.T. 145. In a nutshell his submission was that since the Tribunal had held in the instant case that the appellants did not suppress any fact nor made any wilful misstatement and, therefore, the demand of duty had to be restricted to normal period of 6 months only, the penalty imposed in the instant case be set aside and the Final Order be modified to that extent. 4. In reply ld. SDR submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C, dated 20-3-91 passed by this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Padmini Products on remand by the Apex Court as aforesaid the penalty was set aside relying upon Paragraph 33 of the case of M/s. New Polymer Industries, supra, wherein it was held that the imposition of penalty cannot be sustained in view of the findings that the demand of duty was hit by limitation. In the instant case it was found by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
