2001 (5) TMI 307

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 3. In Appeal No. E/167/97, a duty demand of Rs. 39,394/- notice, along with penalty liability under Rule 173 Q for the period 1-3-1994 to 14-4-1994 was issued on 26-8-1994 alleging that appellants had cleared branded castings, without following the procedure under Notification No. 214/86 or under Rule 57F(3), where branding castings were excisable in Budget 1994. 4. In Appeal No. E/426/97, a notice dated 22-11-1994 was issued demanding duty (to be quantified later) and proposing penalty under Rule 173Q as the appellants were found to have, during the period 18-4-1994 to 20-6-1994, while having given a declaration of clearing Branded Castings to original manufacturer under Notification No. 87/94, dated 13-4-1994, had cleared suc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 was not available. Since no undertaking as pointed out under Notification 214/86 was produced nor challans as prescribed were made, therefore they were required to pay duty. 6. We have heard Advocate for the appellants who reiterated the written submissions relying upon - (a) Board's instructions No. 71/71/94-C.E. (b) TRUs letter F. No. 540/12/94/-TRU to submit that they have not traded in the said castings, since - (i) Castings were made as per specific designs and samples with Brand name of supplier. (ii) Castings were further used by the supplier as O.E. in case of M/s. BDK Engineering Industries Ltd. & M/s. Kirloskar Oil Engines and they relied upon M/s. S.A. Industries Ltd. [200....