9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Respondents. [Order per : P.C. Jain, Vice President]. - Briefly stated facts of this case are as follows :- 1.1 Appellants herein are quarrying stone from a mine leased out to them by District Collector in the State of Maharashtra. They are further converting the said stone in a workshop within the area of mines. A question has arisen whether conversion of stone into what is descri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... activity of crushing undertaken by the assessee would result in the manufacture of a new commodity. Even if a new commodity were to come into existence the umbrella of the notification would still be available. We thus, allow the appeal, set aside the lower order and grant consequential relief if any." 1.2 On the basis of the aforesaid finding the demand of Rs. 1,04,192.00 as confirmed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 66,604.85 towards duty and Rs. 10,000/- towards penalty. Learned Advocate submits that in view of the aforesaid stay order of the Tribunal dated 8-7-1990 there should be no imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- in the present case. 3. Opposing the contentions, learned SDR Shri K. Srivastava submits that the stay order relied upon by the learned Advocate is not a final order. Further it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missed the stay petition. The appellants herein were advised to move the Special Bench for getting their appeal heard on priority basis if the order of approval of classification list had got a recurring effect. Result of the said order, submits the learned SDR is that the appellants were duty bound to follow the classification list for the purpose of determining the duty on each consignment clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the higher side. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the penalty from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 5000/-; otherwise we uphold the finding that the appellants are liable to be imposed with penalty for the violation of the procedure under Rule 173F read with Rule 173G and that they are liable to penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(a). 5. In short, the demand of duty of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
