TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 1083X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Central Government cannot be changed and misread by referring to some guidelines of the Circular issued by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) to round off the test reports and read them to state that 0.15% and above is equal to 0.2% and above, which is the condition of the N/N. 99/93-C.E. The argument of the appellants that once test results are in their favour, samples cannot be retested is also not a valid argument, when the Department had the intelligence of manipulation of test results and which was found to be true when the samples were sent to different laboratories for retesting and when in overwhelmingly large number of cases, the test results clearly indicated that the appellants’ unit was manufacturing low phosphorous g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Feb., 1995 to Dec., 1995 Jan., 1996 Duty (i) 5,56,596/- (ii) 1,09,48,672/- Penalty : ₹ 1 crore 2. E/877/2000 -do- Mr. Mastan Reddy - Penalty : ₹ 1 lakh 3. E/1003/2003 O-I-A No. 198/2003-C.E., dated 26-6-2003 M/s. Unimetal Ispat Ltd. Jan., 1996, Feb. Mar., 1996 Duty : ₹ 4,80,400/- 4. E/79/2004 -do- -do- -do- -do- 2. The matter mainly concerns with the benefit of Notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2000, dated 29-3-2000 again confirmed the duty, penalty etc. against the appellants. Hence the appellants filed these appeals before the Tribunal against the Order (Original) dated 29-3-2000 passed by the Commissioner. 4.3 The similar issue is also involved in the appeals (E/1003/2003 E/79/2004) filed by the appellant against the Order-in-Appeal No. 198/2003-C.E., dated 26-6-2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mangalore. All these four appeals have the common issue; therefore we are deciding them by this common order. 5. The appellants represented by the learned advocate, Shri N. Natarajan inter alia pleads as follows : (i) They are appealing against the demand of duty and penalty imposed on them f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unit has been evading duty of Central Excise by manipulating the test reports. The appellants cannot question the right of the Department to send the samples for retesting, when they had the intelligence on misuse of facilities of notification by the appellants unit. (ii) Samples were sent to the different laboratories and the results are against the appellants and wherever the results were in favour, the benefit of exemption has been given to the appellants. (iii) The language of the notification is very clear that if phosphorous content is below 0.2%, the benefit of notification cannot be given and value of 0.2% cannot be reduced into fractions. The notification has to be interpreted very strictly. (iv) More than 80 tes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty of Central Excise. 8.2 From the facts on record, it is clear that the appellants unit has been given the benefit of notification wherever test results find that phosphorous content in the product is not less than 0.2% or in other words, if phosphorus content is 0.2% and above. 9. The appellants contention is that even when phosphorous content is between 0.15% and 0.19%, they should be given the benefit as if phosphorus content is 0.2% and above. This contention of the appellants does not have sufficient force for its acceptance. 9.1 The notification issued by the Central Government cannot be changed and misread by referring to some guidelines of the Circular issued by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) to round off the test ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
