9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeals arising out of common Order-in-Appeal No. 161-162-CE/MRT-II/2006 dated 13-9-2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Heard both sides. 3. In Appeal No. E/3764, the challenge is against the demand of ₹ 4,26,832/- confirmed along with interest and a penalty of ₹ 1.00 lakh imposed. The dispute in this case relates to the period September, 2004. In the Appeal No. E/3765, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he bio-gas plant is treated as capital goods, the impugned items should be treated as parts, components or spares of capital goods and, therefore, as capital goods themselves. Alternatively, he submits that if the impugned items cannot be treated as capital goods, they should be treated as input in relation to manufacture of bio-gas plant. Ld. Advocate also submits that no penalty is imposable as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ., Raipur reported in 2010 (253) E.L.T. 440. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and perused the records. 7. The claim by the appellants that bio-gas plant is a pollution control equipment is not supported by any authoritative literature. At any rate, no such literature has been produced in the earlier stage of earlier proceeding and also before me. Undisputedly, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
