TMI Blog1991 (11) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellants on identical grounds, are being disposed of by a common order. The details of the appeals are as under:- Appeal No. 121/91 is against Order-in-Original No. 13/91, dated 31-12-1990 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Dindigul Division demanding duty of Rs. 25,322.63 from the appellants in respect of structurals allegedly manufactured and erected in their premises through M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mn, roof trusses, purlins, crane girders, etc. Show Cause Notices were issued to the appellants as well as the job workers. The job workers were, inter alia asked to show cause as to why the duty involved on the structurals should not be demanded from them besides imposition of relevant penalties. Appellants were asked to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed on them under Rule 173Q a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he dues were demanded from the appellants beyond the scope of Show Cause Notices. Hence the orders are not correct. During the personal hearing, Shri N. Venkata Raman, Advocate, for ,the appellants represented that the duties were demanded beyond the scope of the show cause notices. There is no allegation that the job workers are not independent or dummies, and that in accordance with the case l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that the structurals were manufactured by the job workers. Thus in the absence of proposals to demand duty from the appellants in the Show Cause Notices, demanding the said duties vide the Orders-in-Original is not sustainable in law. On this short point alone, the original orders do not survive. As far as the imposition of penalty is concerned, when the Show Cause Notices issued alleged tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
