9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakhs imposed on them under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The impugned order was passed pursuant to the Tribunal's. Final Order Nos. 930 & 931/2002, dated 23-8-2002 [ in 2002 (148) E.L.T. 1193 (Tribunal)}, wherein, after finding that M/s. SPT had clandestinely manufactured and cleared "T-72 cooling systems", without payment of duty, to Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi, Chennai, this Bench directed the Commissioner to considered a few issues which as noted in para 15 of the impugned order, read as under:- (i) Whether SPT are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 164/87, dated 10-6-87 when the goods were cleared without observance of the procedures prescribed under Chapter X. (ii) Whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee. It is submitted that the evidence gathered by them and adduced before the criminal court on the facts of this case is entirely against the Revenue and the same, if admitted, would substantially advance the assessee's case before the Tribunal. The applications have been opposed by learned SDR. After considering the submissions, we are not inclined to allow these applications inasmuch as the prayer is for taking on record additional evidence against the unquestioned finding of clandestined manufacture and removal of excisable goods. The Revenue's case was sustained by this Tribunal in Final Order Nos. 930 & 931/2002 ibid.[2002 (148) E.L.T. 1193 - (Tribunal)] The duty liability of M/s. SPT was upheld in that order. The extended period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the benefit of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) is available to M/s. SPT in the event of their having to pay duty on the subject goods. 4. The benefit of Notification No. 16 dated 10-6-87 was denied to the assessee by the Commissioner This benefit was available to parts of main battle tanks, subject to two conditions. Firstly, it should be proved to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise that such parts were intended to be used as original equipment parts in the manufacture of main battle tanks falling under Heading 87.10 of the CETA Schedule. Apparently, the lower authorities were satisfied about this inasmuch as there is no objection raised in the impugned order to the effect that the goods in question were not used in the man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facture of T - 72 battle tanks. We also find that the quantum of redemption fine imposed by the Commissioner in lieu of such confiscation is reasonable. This part of the Commissioner's order is sustained. 6. There is a penalty on M/s. URL under Rule 209A of the erstwhile al Excise Rules, 1944. They are a company. It is the appellant's case that no such penalty can be imposed on a company. In this connection, learned Counsel has referred to an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore, viz. Orders-in-Appeal Nos. 201 to 211/2005-C.E., dated 25-7-2005, wherein the non-impossibility of penalty on a company under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 [ equivalent to erstwhile Rule 209A] was acknowledged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
