9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. ORDER The facts of the case are that the appellants during 2002 - 2003 had undertaken job work for manufacture of -Steel Structures and tower components' as per the specification of M/s. Reliance Engineering Associates Pvt. Ltd., for telecommunication purpose. The appellant was supplied both steel and lead free of cost for fabrication of 42 Nos. of 'Base Trans receiver Stations' involv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the adjudicating authority. Aggrieved, appellants are before this forum. 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellants Ld. Consultant, Shri P.C. Anand submitted that the appellants had not done the galvanizing process but that was done only by M/s. Hindustan Galvanizing. For this reason the processes carried by them on the material supplied by M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en entrusted with job work to fabricate the steel structures, namely, Base Trans receiver stations. From the facts on record, it also emerges that the said fabricated structure was required to be supplied to M/s. Reliance Engineering Associates Pvt. Ltd., after galvanizing. This being so, the entire processes undertaken on the steel and lead received free of cost by the appellant, incl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch an omission on their part will definitely take the colour of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. Accordingly, penalty imposed under Section 11 AC of the Act does not call for any interference. In any case, the penalty under Rule 25 of the Rules has already been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. 6. In the circumstance, no me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
