TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . - 1. M/s. Southern Press Tools (SPT for short), appellants in Appeal No. E/487/2003, are aggrieved by a demand of duty of over Rs. 52.00 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 53.00 lakhs. They are also challenging confiscation of certain quantity of radiators. M/s. Universal Radiators Ltd. (URL for short), appellants in Appeal No. E/486/2003, are challenging the penalty of Rs. 5.00 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 Fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s all the issues were held against the assessee. The present appeals are directed against the decision of the Commissioner. 2. Learned Counsel has, at the outset, moved two applications for taking additional evidence on record. These applications seek to bring on record certain documents pertaining to criminal prosecution of the assessee. 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 fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ti Udyog Ltd . (supra) had not attained finality. We note that the Revenue's appeal in Sri Chakra Tyres case was dismissed vide 2002 (142) E.L.T. A279 (S.C.) and the review petition filed by the Revenue against the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd . was also dismissed vide 2005 (179) E.L.T. A 102 (S.C.). In the result, 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 Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... result, the benefit of the Notification is admissible to the assessee. 5. In the above view, it is not necessary to look into the MODVAT issue or the question whether any penalty is imposable on the assessee. However it appears, the confiscation of radiators requires to be upheld inasmuch as, admittedly those goods were, concededly, not intended to be used in the manufacture 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 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
