2004 (8) TMI 540

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t. Shri S.V. Parelkar, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : C. Satapathy, Member (T)]. Heard both sides. The duty and penalty imposed under the impugned orders are as follows :- Sr. No. Appeal No. Duty Penalty 1 E/1926/04 15,66,76,862.00+ 10,90,41,825.00 30,00,000.00 2 E/l 927/04 19,05,89,577.00+ 13,24,73,244. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ibunal in the following cases in his support: - (1) Prime Furnishing Pvt. Ltd. Mukesh Ramnivas Gupta v. C.C.E., Surat-I - Order No. C-II/438 to 445/WZB/04 dated 20-1-2004. (2) Supresh Synthetics v. C.C.E., Surat - 2003 (154) E.L.T. 468 (Tri.-Mumbai). 4. Shri S.V. Parelkar, learned J.D.R. appearing for the Department supports the order passed by the Adjudicating Commissioner and vehemently .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uty, the same being a domestic tax. But if it is allowed to sale part of the production in India, it has to pay the excise duty like any other domestic unit. The appellants are claiming duty exemption under the said Notification No. 125/84-CE on the ground that the impugned goods were not allowed to be sold in India. Prima facie, such interpretation appears to be perverse. The appellants cleared t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X