2013 (3) TMI 238

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sides. 2. Appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby a demand of Rs. 4,0,027/- along with interest is confirmed and penalty of Rs. 4,40,027/- is also imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant manufactured and cleared EOT cranes without payment of duty by claiming the benefit of NotificationNo.6/2002 dated 1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ) dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and upheld the order passed by the adjudicating authority. 6. After hearing both sides, we find that as the Notification provides at sr. No. 237 nil rate of duty of non-conventional devices specified in list-9. We have gone through the list-9 and we find that EOT cranes are not specified goods. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the impu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e find that before the clearance of EOT cranes, the appellant given prior intimation to the Revenue authorities and also produced necessary certificate issued by the jurisdictional Central Excise Authority of the recipient unit and appellant had followed the procedure provided under Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules for clearance of the EOT cranes without payment of duty by claiming the benefi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X