9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. - The assessee as well as Revenue are in appeals against the same Order-in-Original No. CE-29/99, dated 30-11-1999 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Guntur. Therefore, all the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly stated, the background and facts leading to the passing of the adjudication order are this. M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the officers of M/s. KCP Ltd. as well as Lakshmi Engineering Works. 3. M/s. KCP Ltd. has been resisting the demand on two grounds - (a) that items in question are merely fabricated elements of Hydel Project and that these are not excisable goods, and (b) that even if these items are liable to be held as excisable goods duty demand is liable to be raised against their fabricator (manufacturer) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of M/s. Basant Industries v. C.C.E., Kanpur - 1995 (75) E.L.T. 21 and the decision in the case of Mini Engineering Works - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 260 (sic). 6. The grievance of the Revenue is that the Commissioner should have imposed higher mandatory penalty. 7. We have perused the records and have considered the submissions made by both sides. The facts of the present case are almost identical to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
