2014 (10) TMI 276

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Held that:- Appellant is liable to discharge the duty demand confirmed along with interest thereon and we hold accordingly. As regards the penalty of 10,63,645/-, at the material time, there was an order in favour of the appellant by this Tribunal and therefore the appellant could not have been alleged to have indulged in suppression of facts. Therefore, imposition of penalty is not warranted. Si .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 645/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the issue involved in the appeal relates to whether use of power in handling raw materials would disentitle them of the duty exemption given to non-power operated units vide Notification No. 28/96-CE dated 11/09/1996. The learned Counsel f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er of the lower appellate authority needs to be upheld. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, we take up the appeal itself for consideration, after waiving the requirement of any pre-deposit and with the consent of both the sides. 5.1 In view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in appellant's own case, th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X