2005 (5) TMI 499

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. Smt. Charul Baranwal, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. - The appellants, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., have been supplying Feedstock for the manufacture of Xylene to IPCL from 1989. The said Feedstock was supplied under the nomenclature C5+ Reformate. It described the item in the same way in excise documents and sale invoices also. The product was also....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h Section 11AC came into force. The penalty payable on account of this modification worked out to about Rs. 46 lakhs. The appellants challenged that part of the order before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat and the High Court was pleased to remand the case for reconsideration. Thus, the penalty issue is before us again.  2.The submission of the learned counsel is that, the penalty would b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion.  3.The learned DR has taken us through the findings in the impugned order and pointed out that the item is an aromatic compound and it was rightly to be called Xylene reformate and the appellants were resorting to mis-description when they called it as C5 reformate.  4.We find merit in the contention of the appellant. The product was being described in the same manner in exci....