2005 (12) TMI 404

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Shri S.S. Bhagat, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. Heard both sides. In view of the fact that the appeal filed by M/s. Shree Venkatesh Steel Ltd. is on a different issue, the same is separated from the group of appeals heard together and is dealt in this order. 2. Shri T. Gunasekaran, learned Advocate for the appellants states that there is a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s that in the appellants case since the production is predominantly of the non-notified goods, they are required to pay only normal duty under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and not under Section 3A. The learned Counsel also states that in fact they have paid a higher amount of duty Rs. 1,84,14,286/- through P.L.A. which is more than the amount of demand of duty Rs. 1,68,43,496/- under .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X