2005 (3) TMI 671

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the Appellant. Shri S.V. Parelkar, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)]. -  After hearing both sides and considering the issues involved, it is found that - (a)     Duty demand of Rs. 5.73 Lakhs (Approx) and equal amount of penalty have been imposed under Rule 173Q along with the interest and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- each on the Dir....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n. As they have demonstrated to declare on these removals in explicit and clear terms what they were deny after detailed intimations filed with the department. The assessee also relies on the decision of this Bench in case of Amritlal Chemaux Ltd. v. Comm. of Cus., Mumbai [2004 (172) E.L.T. 475 (Tri.)] wherein note to chapter 29 of Central Excise Tariff Act was interpreted and it was held that lab....