TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old accordingly. As regards the penalty of ₹ 10,63,645/-, at the material time, there was an order in favour of the appellant by this Tribunal and therefore the appellant could not have been alleged to have indulged in suppression of facts. Therefore, imposition of penalty is not warranted. Since the issue relates to interpretation of law in respect of an exemption notification, we set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the issue involved in the appeal relates to whether use of power in handling raw materials would disentitle them of the duty exemption given to non-power operated units vide Notification No. 28/96-CE dated 11/09/1996. The learned Counsel fairly submits that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... late authority needs to be upheld. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, we take up the appeal itself for consideration, after waiving the requirement of any pre-deposit and with the consent of both the sides. 5.1 In view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in appellant's own case, the appellant is li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
