TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en the water treatment Plant itself is not taxable, there is no question of imposition of penalty on the appellant under the provisions of Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. - Decided in favour of appellant - E/1881/2006-DB - Final Order No. 70211/2016 - Dated:- 2-11-2015 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Vivek Sharma, Advocate Shri Ravindra K. Das, Deputy Commissioner (AR) ORDER The appellant ICI India Ltd is in appeal against order-in-appeal No. 30-CE/APPL/KNP/06 dated 19/01/2006 by which penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules amounting to Rs. One lakh, have been confirmed. 2. The appellant is engaged in the business of manufacture of Fertilizer catalyst. They got erected water treatm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r site, without payment of Central Excise duty thereon, and they had reason the believe that the plant was liable for confiscation under the Rules. 4. The appellant contested the show cause notice both on merits and on limitation and the same was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 29/05/2003 wherein penalty of Rs. One lakh was imposed under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner (appeals) who vide the impugned order was pleased to confirm the penalty observing that the acquisition of water treatment Plant by the appellant and their filing of declaration under Rule 57 T to avail credit on capital gods, which will be used in the manufacture of water trea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... existence, the water treatment plant in the appellant s factory. 6. The learned Counsel also points out that the Courts below have erred in placing reliance on the CBEC Circular number 53/02/98-CX where it is provided that the goods or product should be saleable and marketable. Further Central Excise duty is leviable only on goods and not on the immovable. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal. 7. The learned A.R. for the revenue relies on the impugned order. He further states that the water treatment Plant is excisable and the same is movable. Further the appellant have not sought clarification from the revenue, they have connived with the manufacturer of the water treatment plant, that is ION Exchange and accordingly they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
