2006 (1) TMI 502

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J) (Oral)]. The lower authorities have demanded duty of Rs. 8,40,619/- from the appellants on pre-stressed concrete pipes cleared to L T Ltd. during 29-5-03 to 2-9-03 and have also imposed on them a penalty of Rs. 3,000/-. The demand of duty is consequential to denial of exemption under Notification 6/02 whereunder pipes needed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e the demand of duty and the penalty. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that certification by the office of the District Collector was enough for the purpose of fulfilment of the above condition. In this connection, he relies on the following decisions of the Tribunal : (1) CCE, Vadodara v. Lyphin Chemicals reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 147 (Tribunal) (2) CCE, Rajkot v. Ju .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X