9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /controlled by DSM Sugar and was leased out to M/s S.G. Steel, which fact is confirmatory indicator that the interest of M/s DSM Sugar in the steel plant was restricted to earning revenue through sale of excess electricity only. Merely because the appellant has not been able to provide electricity to M/s S.G. Steel so as to manufacture the ingots, will not call for imposition of any penalty upon the appellant. Penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No.398 of 2009-Single Member - FINAL ORDER NO. - 71517/2019 - Dated:- 7-8-2019 - SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Absent, for the Appellant Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh, Authorised Representative for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s S.G. Steel to run two inductions furnace, Revenue entertained a view that the claim of exemption Notification by M/s S.G. Steel was not appropriate as there was no actual enhancement of production capacity by them. 4. In view of the above, proceedings were initiated against M/s S.G. Steel for confirmation of duty as also for imposition of penalty. The notice also proposed imposition of penalty on the present appellant on the ground that they have aided and abetted M/s S.G. Steel by agreeing with them to supply electricity whereas they are not having capacity to generate so much quantum of power. Accordingly, the notice was adjudicated and demand of duty of Central Excise to the extent of ₹ 1,43,315/- was confirmed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent for simultaneous increase in their electricity generation. There is no evidence to show that any additional arrangement for supplying electricity was made by any means to meet the increased requirement of power. The tabular analysis of the power generation by M/s DSM Sugar and the quantum spared for the steel plant, clearly indicate that M/s DSM Sugar was never in the period under consideration having the capacity to provide electricity for even 4400 MT capacity. Hence the question of any enhancement in the installed capacity is ruled out. 6. As is seen from above, the only reason for imposition of penalty upon the appellant is that they were not in a position to supply adequate power to M/s S.G. Steel, who installed an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
