2004 (8) TMI 540

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Parelkar, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : C. Satapathy, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. The duty and penalty imposed under the impugned orders are as follows :- Sr. No. Appeal No. Duty Penalty 1 E/1926/04 15,66,76,862.00+ 10,90,41,825.00 30,00,000.00 2 E/l 927/04 19,05,89,577.00+ 13,24,73,244.00 35,00,000.00 2. Shri Mayur Shroff, learned advocate states that no deposi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Mukesh Ramnivas Gupta v. C.C.E., Surat-I - Order No. C-II/438 to 445/WZB/04 dated 20-1-2004. (2) Supresh Synthetics v. C.C.E., Surat - 2003 (154) E.L.T. 468 (Tri.-Mumbai). 4. Shri S.V. Parelkar, learned J.D.R. appearing for the Department supports the order passed by the Adjudicating Commissioner and vehemently opposes the stay application and states that in a similar case, the Circui....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the production in India, it has to pay the excise duty like any other domestic unit. The appellants are claiming duty exemption under the said Notification No. 125/84-CE on the ground that the impugned goods were not allowed to be sold in India. Prima facie, such interpretation appears to be perverse. The appellants cleared the goods without payment of duty for export. They have not produced an....