9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 32/2005-CE, dt. 17.08.2005 as claimed because they are the manufacturers. Any exemption notification must be viewed strictly against the person who is claiming its benefit - the appellant is not even remotely entitled to the benefit of the exemption notifications which he claimed. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - APPEAL No. E/773/2010 - A/30337/2019 - Dated:- 18-2-2019 - Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And Mr. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) None for the appellant Shri Guna Ranjan, Superintendent/AR for the Respondent. ORDER Per: Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao 1. When this matter is called out, none appeared on behalf of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by them along with interest and proposing to impose penalty under Section 11 AC. 4. After following due process, the Ld. Commissioner through the impugned order confiscated 372.2006 MT of the goods valued at ₹ 1,56,00,000/- which were seized and provisionally released under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. She allowed them to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 2,50,000/- only. She confirmed the demand of ₹ 73,58,558/- and imposed penalty under section 11 AC of the Act. Aggrieved by this order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. 5. It is not in dispute that the appellant has manufactured these goods and that they fall under chapter heading 7308 of Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 007 in the case of Fine Industries vs. CESTAT [2008(221) ELT 345 (A.P)]. He further relies on the order of the Tribunal in the case of Aarti Steels Limited [2002 (144) ELT 360 (Tri.- Del.)], which was upheld by Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana as reported in 2007 (207) ELT 35 (P H). In all these cases, the ratio which is laid down is that goods which are fabricated are chargeable to excise duty if they have distinct name, character and use and are marketable. It is not in dispute that the structural material in this case are marketable and they are indeed marketed. The exemption notification 03/2005-CE claimed by the appellant will be applicable only when the structurals are made at the site, not thousands of Kilometers away in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
