TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls. In both the sets of appeals Revenue is the appellant and M/s. Balakrishna Industries and M/s. Modistone Ltd. are the respondents-assessees in the respective set of appeals. Modistone Limited having been closed being a sick unit, an Official Liquidator was appointed. On the application for bringing the Official Liquidator on record, notice was issued by this Court on 25th April, 2006. The Official Liquidator is not represented before us in spite of service. 2. The first set of appeals, i.e., C.A. Nos. 3389-3390/2001 is directed against Final Order Nos. C-I/3513-3514/WZB/2000, dated 6th October, 2000 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai [for short "the Tribunal"] in Appeal No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ough the sizes of tyres meant for Tractor Trailer and LCV was same i.e. 7.50-16, the rate of duty leviable on these two types of tyres was different. Similarly, the size of tyres meant for Tractor Front and Jeep was same, i.e. 6.00-16, the rate of duty leviable on these varieties of tyres were different. 7. The assessee was served with the notice dated 31st March, 1997 to show cause as to why the exemption granted under Notification No. 34/91 dated 1st March, 1991, as amended from time to time, be not denied and consequential differential excise duty recovered. 8. Allegation against the assessee was that tyres meant for LCV were cleared as Tractor Trailor tyres by paying lower rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 34/91. Similarly t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Since the revenue has not challenged the findings recorded by the Tribunal on merits, they are confirmed. Once it is held that no differential duty was leviable, question of levy of penalty does not arise. 14. In the second set of appeals, the Tribunal has followed its earlier decision in the case of M/s. Balakrishna Industries. Since we are dismissing the appeals filed by the revenue against M/s. Balakrishna Industries, the present set of appeals is liable to be dismissed as well. Otherwise also, we find that the finding recorded by the Tribunal are findings of fact which do not call for interference by this Court. 15. For the reasons stated above, the appeals fail and are dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. - - TaxT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
