TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification No. 01/2011-CE. (N.T.) dated 17-2-2011 u/s 11C, decided in favor of the assessee - E/2821-2822/2009, 1929-1930, 1079-1080/2008 , 2303-2304, 2362-2363/2009, 1639-1640/2010, 2548, 2345/2009, 773-774 and 1615-1616/2008 - 269-286/2011-EX(PB) - Dated:- 4-3-2011 - Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Nageshwar Rao, Mayank, Tushar, Subodh Pathak, B. Patnaik, S. Sunil, Surender Gupta, P.K. Sahoo and Prashant Shukla, Advocates, for the Appellant. S/Shri B.K. Singh, S.K. Panda Jt. CDRs, V. Choudhary and R.K. Verma, DRs and Prabhat Kumar, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President (Oral)]. Heard the learned Advocates for the assessees and learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r authorities held that the products in question were liable to pay the excise duty and hence the appellants are before us challenging the said decisions. 4. In the course of the proceedings, the department had also issued orders for seizure of the products on account of non-payment of duty with the intention to confiscate the same. The authorities below confirmed the orders of confiscation but allowed release thereof on payment of redemption fine. 5. While deciding the duty amount payable by the appellants, the authorities below have also directed payment of interest and have imposed equal amount of penalty. 6. It is not in dispute that the components so manufactured by the appellants are intermediate products. It is not in dispute t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate for the appellants the authorities below having totally failed to consider the above points in proper prospective and without proper application of the settled law in relation to the issue of marketability revealed from number of judicial pronouncements by the Hon ble Supreme Court, High Courts and the Tribunal, the impugned orders are liable to be set-aside and it is to be held that the products in question are not excisable. 10. In the cases in hand, it is the contention on behalf of the department that the product in question which are similar in character and nature are not only manufactured by only one assessee but are manufactured by a number of assessees and consumed in the work of the project by the DMRC in various segments of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n work at such site. Sub-headings of Chapter 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) except sub-headings 6804, 6805, 6811, 6812 and 6813. 1st March, 2006 to 6th July, 2009 (Both inclusive) 2. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 11C of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the whole of duty of excise leviable under the said Act on such goods failing under such tariff sub-headings as specified in the said Table but for the said practice, shall not be required to be paid for the period specified in column (3) of the said Table, subject to fulfillment of condition that the benefit under this notification shall not be admissible unless the unit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
