9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1017X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nished goods were stored in the premises with intent to remove without payment of duty, the department seized the finished goods. Later these goods were released provisionally on 07/06/2004 after obtaining bond for Rs. 3,00,000/- with bank guarantee for Rs. 1,00,000/-. b. Statement of Shri Mohammed Taher Sharif, Partner of appellant in appeal No. 131/2007 was recorded. He stated that appellants were engaged in manufacturing various sizes of roof bolts and nuts which is used in coal mines. Their turnover was approximately Rs. 30 to 40 lakhs per annum, but for the first time, they were given an order of Rs. 4.6 crores by M/s Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. (SCCL). A show-cause notice was issued to appellant proposing to demand Rs. 35,55,127/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as imposed on the partner Shri Mohammed Taher Shariff. The proceedings initiated against M/s. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. was dropped. e. The issue was carried in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and vide the order impugned herein, the commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order-in-original rejecting the appeal. The appellants are thus before the Tribunal. f. At the time of hearing the learned counsel Shri R. Raghavendra appearing for the appellant submitted that during the time of filing the appeal, in an identical case, in respect of M/s A.P. Heavy Machinery & Engineering Ltd., a subsidiary of M/s Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., the Commissioner (Appeals), Guntur vide Order-in-appeal dated 30/12/2005 had dropped the dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt has urged to set aside the penalties imposed. It is submitted by appellants that they were under bona fide belief that the activity did not amount to manufacture. They had obtained SSI registration. But for the single order obtained from SCCL, they would fall within SSI unit. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in an identical issue had held that the activity of making roof bolts did not amount to manufacture. Taking into these aspects and that the issue was an interpretational one, we hold that imposing penalty on appellants is unwarranted. Therefore the equal penalty imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed for not taking registration and the separate penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
