https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221472 EOT cranes were held not to fall within Notification No. 6/2002 as the relevant list of non-conventional devices did not include them, so exemption from duty was denied and the duty demand was sustained. Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was found unsustainable because prior intimation had been given, the recipient unit's central excise certificate had been produced, and the Chapter X procedure had been followed; the penalty was therefore set aside. The result was partial relief to the assessee, limited to cancellation of the penal portion. en-us Wed, 07 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:17:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221472 EOT cranes were held not to fall within Notification No. 6/2002 as the relevant list of non-conventional devices did not include them, so exemption from duty was denied and the duty demand was sustained. Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was found unsustainable because prior intimation had been given, the recipient unit's central excise certificate had been produced, and the Chapter X procedure had been followed; the penalty was therefore set aside. The result was partial relief to the assessee, limited to cancellation of the penal portion. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 07 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221472