9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the view expressed by the Tribunal and refunded the amount to the petitioner, it is not justified to uphold the levy for the period in between – Petition allowed X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1948. For the purposes of transmission and distribution of electric power in the State of Haryana, petitioner was required to erect, at sites in the fields, transmission lines/towers made up of iron and steel angles, plates, channels etc. In the process various activities like sizes, punching of holes, drilling, straightening, notching and bending etc. are carried out in the workshop of the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice was duly replied to by the petitioner vide letter dated June 21, 1988 objecting to the levy of duty proposed in the show cause notice under reply. In support of the plea, an order dated August 24, 1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi was also referred to. However, still a demand of Rs. 8,00,625-85 of Excise duty was raised against the petitioner vide order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.) = (2005) 6 SCC 310 and Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Excise and Customs - 2005 (184) E.L.T. 128 (S.C.) = (2005) 7SCC 94. 6. No one has put in appearance on behalf of respondents. 7. Much facts are not required to be gone into in the present case as I find that in the case of the petitioner itself for the period prior and subsequent to the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
