2006 (12) TMI 352

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the Appellant. S/Shri P.K. Das, JDR & J.K. Jha, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. -  Since the issue involved in all these three appeals is same, we are taking up them for passing in a common order. In terms of the impugned orders, the appellants are required to pre-deposit duty amount and penalty as mentioned below : Appellant Duty Penalty (1) Te .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... were dutiable, the exemption was provided to the parts manufactured in the factory by virtue of Notification No. 217/86-C.E. Since the wagons were exempted, revenue contended that the exemption for parts would not be available. Consequently, the demands were  slapped on the appellant. Penalties have also been imposed. The Indian Railways took up the entire issue with the Govt. of India. It wa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... demanded on these parts. In those cases the relevant notification were 46/94-C.E. dated 1-3-94 and 95/94-C.E. dated 25-4-94. In the first notification, there was an omission with regard to the exemption of the parts manufactured. This was noticed and the anomaly was removed by issue of the subsequent notification but the Revenue demanded duty on the intervening period on the ground that there was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X