TMI Blog1999 (5) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of personal penalty has also been imposed on the applicant by the adjudicating authority. Ld. Advocate prays for a similar treatment plant as he has prays for the aforesaid amount of duty. 2. There is no factory operated by the applicants. They purchase various fabricated items from different persons bring them to the site and erection/installation is done by the customers themselves under the supervision of the applicant. Revenues intends which are asked duty on the said goods under Tariff Heading 84.19 which speaks of machinery plant or laboratory equipment whether or not electrical heating, for the treatment of materials by process involving change of temperature such as heating......; instantaneous or storage water heaters, non-el ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ond the period of 6 months and the Department knew everything of the activity of the applicant. In this connection ld. Advocate Shri V. Sridharan has drawn our attention to the letter dated 6th June, 1989 from the applicant (available at page 288-289 of the appeal papers) wherein an endorsement has been made by the Superintendent on the applicants letter from his file C. No. C.E.-20/Misc. RII/89, dated 7-6-1989. Returned in original with the remarks that the views contained in this letter are hereby confirmed. In the said letter the applicants had described their activity of supplying the various parts of the effluent treatment plant to its various customers at site confirmation of the views was bought that this treating activity indu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We observe, having regard to over all facts and circumstances of the case that the applicants have a strong prima facie case on limitation in view of the endorsement having been made by the Supdt. on the applicants letter dated 6th June, 1989. We shall examine in detail the effect of the two judgments of the Apex Court namely Sirpur Paper Mills and Mittal Engineering at the time of hearing of the appeal. So far as penalty under Section 11AC is concerned it is clear that the period involved is before the insertion of Section 11AC in the Act. Therefore no penalty as such is liable to imposed on the appellant/ applicant. In view of the above, Stay Petition is allowed unconditi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
