2004 (3) TMI 638

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . R. Bhagya Devi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jeet Ram Kait, Member (T) (Oral)]. - The appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 25/99, dated 30-9-1999, by which the ld. Commissioner has confirmed the demand of Rs. 39,59,525/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on M/s. Syndicate Engg. Co. (P) Ltd. and has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the appellant und .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Appearing on behalf of the Revenue ld. SDR, Smt. R. Bhagya Devi, submits that Revenue is not demanding duty on the pipelines, that is to say the plant in which the pipes are used but they are asking duty on the pipes, which are manufactured in the factory and, therefore, taken to the site without payment of duty. Countering the arguments of the ld. Advocate, she submitted that this Board's .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e not obtained any licence, the penalty has been rightly imposed on them under Rule 173Q of the Rules ibid. However, taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the penalty to a sum of Rs. 2.5 lakhs (Rupees two lakhs and fifty thousands only). But for this modification, the appeal is otherwise rejected. It is ordered accordingly.
Case laws, Decisions, J .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X