9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate, for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar Present appeal filed by Revenue is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.18-19/CE/APPL-LKO/LKO/2017 dated 12/01/2017 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow. 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s Electricity Pole Manufacturing Unit was engaged in manufacture of PCC Poles falling under chapter head 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , show cause notices were issued to the respondent separately for both the period, for recovery of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 7,16,619/- for the period April, 2012 to October, 2012 and Rs. 13,15,426/- for the period November, 2012 to January, 2013 under Section 11 A(I) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and equal penalty was proposed under the Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue in the appeal filed before him was identical and therefore he has set aside both the Orders-in-Original and allowed the appeals of respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, Revenue is before this Tribunal. 4. The grounds of appeal of Revenue are that the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Assistant Engineer (Civil) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur reported at (232) EL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue involved in the present appeal does not dealt with Notification No.74/93-CE dated 28/02/1993 and therefore grounds of appeal based on Notification No.74/93-CE cannot sustain. 7. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of records, I did not find Notification No.74/93-CE being subject matter of the present appeal. I accept the contention of the learned counsel for respondent tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
