9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 824X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R. Prasad, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - As per facts on record, M/s. Gujarat State Construction Corpn. Ltd. and the appellants jointly accepted a tender with M/s. Gujarat Maritime Board for construction of a jetty at Pipavav port. During the said construction, pre-cast cement blocks were also manufactured which is the subject matter of the dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the appellant is not justified. (iii) that in any case, the said activity of manufacture of cement blocks is exempted under Notification No. 59/90-C.E., dt. 20-3-90. 4. It is seen that though the above pleas were raised before Commissioner, he has not dealt with the same and has confirmed the demand on the sole ground that the appellant has undertaken the manufacturing act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, we reproduce Para 4 of the said decision. "4. We have already noted that, in respect of EPC manufactured by the Joint Venture, any demand cannot be raised on the appellants under Rule 57CC or otherwise. No valid reason has been stated in the impugned order for sustaining such a demand, nor has any such reason been put forward by the DR. Any such demand should have been raised on the Joint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of demand of duty upon the appellant or imposition of penalty upon them was illegal and unauthorized.
6. By following the said decision and without going into other submissions made by the appellants, we set aside the impugned order on the above ground itself and allow both the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.
(Pronounced in Court on 30-9-2008) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
