TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (12) TMI 439
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Kumar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. - In the impugned Order No. 19/94, dated 23-5-1994, the learned Collector confirmed demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 8,63,997/- on cement articles manufactured and cleared during the period from 2-1-1993 to 15-3-1993. A penalty of Rs. 80,000/- was also imposed on the appellants. Being aggrieved by this order, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....He further observed that the question whether the producer or the manufacturer is or is not the owner of the goods is not determinative of the liability holding that appellant was the manufacturer and the demand of Central Excise duty was confirmed and penalty was imposed. 3. Arguing the case for the appellants Shri Kuppusamy, learned Consultant submits that he is arguing the case only on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmits that on this count alone, the appeal needs to be accepted. 5. Learned Consultant further submits that the appellant was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 59/90, inasmuch as the cement articles manufactured by them was supplied to the railways. He submits that the site for manufacture of the articles was allotted by the railways. He submits that a number of letters were wri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e authorities below. 7. We have heard the rival submissions. We have also perused the evidence on record as also the case law cited and relied upon by the consultant for the appellants. We note that intimation about manufacture of cement articles supplied to railways was given by the appellants to the Central Excise authorities concerned. Thus, there was no mis-statement of facts or suppre....