9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant’s own cases M/S. THE MADRAS ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM [2017 (12) TMI 1610 - CESTAT CHENNAI] for earlier periods wherein the Bench has held in favor of the appellants - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal Nos.: E/00477-00480/2012 - Final Order No. 42182-42185/2018 - Dated:- 27-7-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to impose penalty under Section 11AC of the CEA, 1944. Accordingly, the lower authorities confirmed the demands with interest and imposed penalty vide Orders-in-Original Nos. 161-163/2011 C. Ex. dt. 14.10.2011. In appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Salem upheld the demand and interest and also imposed penalties. Hence, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 2. Ld. Counsel Shri. S. Bha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the test of marketability and hence does not qualify to be excisable goods. 3. Ld. AR, Shri. S. Govindarajan supported the findings in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials on record. We find that this issue is no more res integra as the same is covered by the decision of this very Bench in the appellant s own cases for e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
