9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 10,82,86,891/- (Rupees Ten Crores Eighty Two Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety One only) against the appellants and has imposed an equal penalty on the appellants under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and has also imposed a further penalty of Rs. 10.00 Lakhs (Rupees Ten Lakhs) under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Adjudicating Commissioner has also ordered confiscation of 50769 MTs of saleable steel but has allowed redemption of the same on payment of Rs. 2.00 Crores (Rupees Two Crores). 4. Shri S.P. Mazumder, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the goods ordered to be confiscated were neither available nor seized at any stage. He, further, explains that out of the 50769 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been used in the manufacture of the finished goods and hence these are not entitled for exemption under the cited Notification No. 67/95-C.E. dated 16-3-1995 contrary to the one rendered in the case of Visveswaraya Iron Steel Ltd. (cited supra). 6. We find that while denying the exemption, the Adjudicating Commissioner in para 30 of his order has given the following reasoning: The purposes for which the impugned goods have been used in the instant case are mentioned by the assessee in their written defence submissions filed during personal hearing. The impugned goods in the instant case are stated to have been used for making splash plates for SMS and other repair and maintenance jobs for different departments, repairs and maintena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowing anything and everything connected with the activities of the assessee including administrative, civil works, employees welfare etc. would cause violence to the language of the Notification. In view of the fact that the appellants themselves have paid duty on 500 MTs of the material used otherwise than in relation to the manufacture of the finished goods, the apprehension expressed by the Adjudicating Commissioner is unfounded. Moreover, the cited decision of the Bangalore Bench in the case of Visveswaraya Iron Steel Ltd. (cited supra) has dealt with the interpretation of the very same notification and the said decision has allowed a liberal construction of the phrase and has allowed exemption to goods which are used within the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
