9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the records with his assistance. 4. The present appeal arises from Order dated 30th June, 2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Guntur. By the impugned order, apart from setting aside the penalty under Rule 25 and 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the Commissioner (Appeals) refused to interfere in the Order dated 30th December, 2008 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Tirupathi. By the said Order dated 30th December, 2008, the appellants were directed to pay an amount of Rs. 16,96,241/- being the differential duty payable on the clearances of the product manufactured by them, in exercise of powers under Section 11A(1) (proviso) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, while appropriating an amount of Rs. 15,04,988/- already paid earli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngalore-II reported in 2010 (249) E.L.T. 398 and of the Karnataka High Court in the matter of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-II v. M/s. Mysore Cements Ltd. reported in 2010-TIOL-702-HC-KAR-CX = 2010 (259) E.L.T. 30 (Kar.), has submitted that the appellants are entitled for concessional rate in terms of the said Notification and, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. 8. On the other hand, the Joint CDR, drawing our attention to Notification No. 4/2007, which is applicable to the relevant period, submitted that the rate of Rs. 350/- per tonne would be applicable only in cases of clearance of goods in packaged form of retail sale price not exceeding Rs. 190/- per 50 kg. Otherwise, the duty rate would be Rs. 400/- p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant company has been formed to take up the activities of building houses for public and consequently, purchased commodity in bulk and directly from the suppliers/manufacturers and, therefore, is a service institution. Further, the clearance of the product is not on retail basis and in terms of the agreement between the parties, there is no requirement of printing of MRP on the packages in which the product is packed. This factual aspect noted by the authorities below being not disputed, rather nothing having been brought to our notice which could disclose the said finding to be either perverse or not borne out from the record, it goes without saying that the claim of the applicant cannot fall under clause 1A of the Notification nor under 1B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
