2006 (4) TMI 337

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vocate, for the Appellant. Smt. R. Bhagya Devi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - In the impugned order, duty of Rs. 5,95,721/- has been demanded from the appellants and a penalty of equal amount has been imposed on them under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The order has also imposed a separate penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on them under Rule 173Q. Moving the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... case that the appellants made-any similar clearances of goods during the rest of the financial year. On these facts, learned counsel has claimed prima facie case against the demand of duty and the penalties. Learned counsel has relied on the following decisions of the Tribunal in support of his claim for SSI benefit:- (i) Dum Dum Metalloy Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 2001 (134) E.L.T. 171 (Tri. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... department has no case that the appellants were not doing job work on raw materials supplied by M/s. VAP during the aforesaid period. The party's contention that they had received only labour charges from the raw material supplier has also not been rebutted. What was cleared on payment of duty by the appellants was 'scrap'. The SSI notification, however, pertained to PVC pipes and not to scrap. He .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X