2005 (8) TMI 196

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... his Order-in-Original dated 30-12-2004 demanded a sum of Rs. 36,24,598/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Further he imposed equal penalty under Section 11AC and demanded interest under Section 11AB of the Act. A penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on M/s. Visakhapatnam Port Trust. The appellants have strongly challenged the findings of the Commissioner. 2.Shri G. Shivadass, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri Ganesh Havanur, learned SDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue. 3.The learned Advocate made the following submissions :- (i) The liability to Excise duty under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act should arise only if the activity carried out resulted in the manufacture of excisable goods. Th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .L.T. 497] (h) CCE, Mumbai v. Josts Engg. Co. Ltd. [2002 (146) E.L.T. 29] (i) Fenner India Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur [2001 (129) E.L.T. 644] (j) Virdi Brothers v CCE, Indore [2001 (132) E.L.T. 86] (k) Bharat Gears Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-VI [2001 (132) E.L.T. 294] (l) Bellis India Ltd, v. CCE, Chennai [2001 (132) E.L.T. 364] (m) CCE, Chandigarh v. Vardhman Spinning Mills [2001 (132) E.L.T. 663] (n) Wintech Taparia Ltd. v. CCE, Indore [2001 (132) E.L.T. 698] (o) ACC Ltd. v. CCE [2001 (133) E.L.T. 375] (p) Cethar Vessels Ltd. CCE [2002 (143) E.L.T. 336] (q) Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. v. CCE, Visakhapatnam [2002 (143) E.L.T. 87] (r) Otto India Pvt Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur [2002 (145) E.L.T. 367] (s) Palmtech Engineers Pvt Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore [200 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ering & Indus. Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad [2001 (136) E.L.T. 617 which has been affirmed by the Apex Court [2002 (139) E.L.T. A310 (S.C.)] (b) Thermax Surface Coating Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh [2002 (145) E.L.T. 356] (c) Thermax Surface Coatings Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai-III [2002 (148) E.L.T. 783] (d) Elcon Clipsal India Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad-I [2002 (146) E.L.T. 360] (e) Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. v. CCE, Patna [2003 (154) E.L.T. 493] (f) CCE, Chennai v. Visveswaraya Iron & Steel Ltd. [Final Order No. 692/2005, dated 3-5-2005] [2005 (192) E.L.T. 703 (T)] (viii) Since the appellants were under the bona fide belief that the RMS would not be liable to duty, it cannot be held that there was suppression of facts, with a wilful intent to evade excise d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X