9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J) (Oral)].- The Appeal No. E/76/2004 arises from Order-in-Original No. 33/2004 dated 16-10-2003 by which the Commissioner has confirmed demands of duty of Rs. 7,60,437/- in respect of 349.626 MT CTD Bars of dia 7 mm and 8 mm in terms of proviso to Section 11A(1) of CE Act. There is a penalty of Rs. 2.50 lakhs under Rule 173Q of CE Rules on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the matter had been adjourned on a number of occasions and the party had been informed that no further adjournments would be granted and the appeal would be heard on merits in case no representation is made today. A representative of the appellant had signed the order sheet on 25-4-2006 for having noted the date. 3. The learned SDR submits that there is no merit in these appeals. He points ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tial grounds to challenge the confirmation of demand. In so far as the Order-in-original No. 24/2003 dated 13-10-2003 is concerned, the learned SDR submits that there is no denial of facts of removal of MS Channels for construction of sheds. He points out that the item is not exempted in terms of the Notification No. 67/95-C.E. dated 16-3-1995 as claimed by them. The Notification applies only to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) ECC 433, wherein also the appeal was dismissed on similar grounds. Further reliance is placed on Jayant Extraction Indus. Ltd. v CCE, Rajkot as reported in 2004 (171) E.L.T. 501 wherein also the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the demands in similar facts and circumstances. Reliance is also placed on Q.H. Talbros Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi reported in 2002 (146) E.L.T. 471 wherein al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al goods. In the present case, the shed which has been set up by the appellants are not exempted and hence, the benefit is not available. The above cited judgments relied on by the learned SDR clearly supports the Revenue s case. The Commissioner has examined the issue in detail and found that the charges have been proved in the case. There is no merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
