TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (J)]. This Appeal arises against order-in-original dated 12-1-1990 passed by Additional Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad confirming the duty amount of Rs. 79,013.10 under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules read with proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act and also imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000/- under Rule 173Q of the said Rules. 2. It was alleged in the show caus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o question of clandestine removal or for extending the larger period as the Department had granted them licence and had approved the plan for erection of steel tank for storage of molasses. 3. However, the Additional Collector rejected their pleas and confirmed the demand. Ld. Counsel submits that the steel tank was constructed by cement concrete foundation and the said steel tank is an immovabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eel tank to be manufactured by them. It can be seen from the letter dated 7-11-1984 about the approval of the ground plan. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the appellants clandestinely manufactured and got erected the steel tank. Therefore the proviso to Section 11A or Rule 9(a) cannot be invoked in the present case and the demand is hit by time bar. Therefore, without going into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
