9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has to be treated as industrial consumers - Held that:- Since matter stands remanded to the original authority by the Commissioner (Appeals) for re-quantification of duty amount, the appellants are at liberty to raise the above legal points before the original adjudicating authority, we also find that upholding of penalty amount, but having corrected the demand figures before the Commissioner (Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posable upon the appellants and accordingly in the impugned orders as regards penalties were upheld. We note that no duty re-quantification stands made by the lower authorities, requiring us to make any dispensing with the predeposit of the same. As regards penalty, we find that it was not proper on the part of the Commissioner (Appeals) to uphold the penalty imposition of around Rs. 1.38 lakhs in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmodity) Rules, 1977, in as much as their product was sold to industrial consumers. However, with effect from 31.01.07, provisions of Rule 34A were deleted and simultaneously Rule 2A was introduced. As per the explanation under Rule 2A defining industrial consumers, wherever the goods sold directly to the manufacturers, the same has to be treated as industrial consumers, in as much as the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the Bombay High Court was taken note of by the Karnataka High Court and was not agreed upon. He also submits that the said decision of the Bombay High Court relies upon the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of Whirlpool of India Ltd. Vs. UOI 2007 (218) ELT 167 (SC), the correctness of which decision is itself doubted by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the subsequent judgement in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
