9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g that the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. As against this order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court by the judgment dated 14.12.2006 in Central Excise Appeal No. 12/2008, upheld the order of the Tribunal as to the classification of the goods. The Hon'ble High Court in Para 12, remanded the matter back to us for a limited purpose of appreciating the evidences as to the imposition of equivalent amount of penalty on the HSD which was used by DTA, though the same was procured for EOU. The amount of the duty liability on the HSD was Rs. 4,52,585/- was paid by the appellant at the time of investigation along with interest. The Tribunal had held that the duty liability with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been voluntarily deposited before issue of show cause notice and that there was no intention to evade payment of duty. I find that the visiting Central Excise officers detected that the 'High Speed Diesel' (HSD) was being used as fuel in Dryer machines installed in all the units and also in DG sets installed in Unit I & IV. Whereas the HSD Storage Tanks were located only in Unit-II (EOU-I)-3 Tanks and Unit-IV -1 Tank. All the Dryer machines & DG Sets installed in the units were found connected with the storage tanks of HSD through underground pipelines and the HSD was regularly supplied from the said tanks. The visiting officers succeeded in recovery of four registers showing therein Date-wise details of HSD supplied to each unit during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the departmental authority as to the existence of underground pipelines, the ld. Counsel admits fairly that it was not informed to the department. On the face of such factual position, we find that the adjudicating authority was correct in imposing equivalent amount of penalty on the appellant i.e. amount of Rs. 4,52,585/-. 7. In view of this, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the adjudicating authority. 8. As regards the decisions relied upon by the ld. DR, we find that the facts in those cases are totally different from the facts of the case in hand recorded by the adjudicating authority. 9. In view of the above foregoing, we hold that the impugned order to the extent of confirming duty liability alon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
