9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 873X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e two applications are filed seeking waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs.55.07 lakhs and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, personal penalty of Rs.1.00 lakh on Shri R.N. Basu, Director of the Applicant Company, imposed under Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. At the outset, the ld. Consultant appearing for the Applicants has s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsultant has further submitted that in any case, the said amount is still lying with the Department. He has further submitted that the applicant offers not to seek refund of the said amount during the pendency of the Appeal. He has further submitted that the excisibility of the water treatment plant has been decided by this Tribunal in the case of Ion Exchange (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsequently retracted. 3. The ld.A.R. appearing for the Department, has reiterated the findings of the ld. Commissioner. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. We find that the issue involved in the present case relates to excisability of water treatment plant. The Revenue's case is that the Applicant had assembled the said industrial treatment plant in their factory and thereafter, clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid amount during pendency of the Appeal. For the purpose of the present waiver Applications, we are of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs.38.76 lakhs, which are in the custody of the Department, would be sufficient to hear the appeals filed by the Applicants. In these circumstances, the applicants are able to make out a prima-facie case for waiver of predeposit of balance dues adjudged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
