9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eering Pvt. Ltd. Mr. V. Seshadri Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore [2016 (10) TMI 33 - CESTAT BANGALORE], where it was held that the demands are not sustainable and the same are set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/315/2004-DB - 21043/2017 - Dated:- 2-5-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Mr. N. Jagadish, AR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Central Excise, Bangalore-I Commissionerate vide Order-in-Original No.11/2003 dated 15.7.2003 confirmed duty demand of ₹ 10,55,937/- on the ducts manufactured by the assessee. Further, duty of ₹ 34,930/- was demanded on the scrap generated during such fabrication. Penalty of was imposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, Aggrieved by the order of the Additional Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further submitted that the goods are marketable and are being removed on payment of duty to various places in the country. He also submitted that an entirely new commodity having distinct name, character and usage emerges during the process before the same is used for erection of air conditioner. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-assessee submitted that this Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CCE Vs. ETA Engineering Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (224) E.L.T. 447 (Tri. -Bang.)] CCE, Chennai Vs. M/s ETA Engineering P. Ltd. [Final Order Nos.793-794/11 dated 26/7/2011] 6. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the assessee's own case, we are of the considered opinion that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. Therefore, we uphold the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
