9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri V.K. Agrawal, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Heard both sides. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant is only challenging the confiscation and consequential redemption fine in respect of machine i.e. chain saw stone cutting machine. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Rajasthan Udyog cleared one mach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant also violated the provisions of EPCG Scheme as machine was used in the mines. 3. The contention of the appellant is that at the time of seizure the machine was cleared under invoice by paying appropriate duty. The invoice is dated 14-8-2000, therefore, the machine in question is not liable for confiscation. For the earlier clearance where the manufacturer cleared the same by describ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that M/s. Rajasthan Udyog cleared the machine by describing as parts and components, therefore, machine is liable for confiscation. 5. The present appeal is filed by M/s. Supreme Marbles & Granites Ltd. who is purchaser of the machine from Rajasthan Udyog. The machine was seized on 7-12-2001 at the premises of the appellant. At that time, the machine was received under the invoice dated 14-8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
