9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 968X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposed a penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs on the appellant under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2.1. Briefly, the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a partnership firm carrying on business in the manufacture of iron and steel castings and power looms, and its parts with due Central Excise registration. The impugned order passed in de novo proceedings in pursuance to the order No.2497 to 2500/1996 dt.15/05/1996 of the CEGAT, Madras setting aside Order-in-Original No.45/92 dt. 30/04/1992 passed by the then Collector of Central Excise in the proceedings relating to the appellant herein and three other concerns M/s. Sunrise Industries, M/s Quality Steel and Allied Industries and M/s. Univertex Machinery (P) Ltd. A show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailed to consider the benefit available to the appellant an SSI unit under Notification No.175/86, the Tribunal vide Final Order dt. 14/01/2004 remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to examine the eligibility of SSI exemption in terms of Notification No.175/86 and passed an appropriate order and after the remand, the adjudicating authority in de novo order dt.31/10/2005 allowed the appellant the benefit of Notification No.175/86. However while determining the duty payable on the dutiable clearances, the adjudicating authority allowed exemption under Notification No.175/86 for the first clearance of Rs. 15 lakhs and on the clearances in excess of Rs. 15 lakhs, the authority demanded tariff rate of duty without appreciating the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uantum of penalty imposed in the Order-in-Original which was challenged by the assessee. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following decisions:- a. TISCO Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jamshedupur [2016(344) ELT 994] b. Dharshan Sing & Co. vs. CC, Amritsar [2015(316) ELT 279 (Tri.-Del.)] c. Varalakshmi Exports Vs. CC (Sea-import), Chennai [2014(314) ELT 257 (Tri. Chennai)] d. Goenka Impex Pvt. Ltd Vs. CC, Lucknow [2009(233) ELT 102 (Tri. Del.)] 6. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 7. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of the various case laws relied upon by the appellant in support of his submissions, I find that consistently the Tribunal vide various decisions hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
