2006 (3) TMI 621

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, for the Appellant. Smt. R. Bhagya Devi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - M/s. Salem Steel Industries (appellants) have two units, one at Salem and the other at Gummidipundi. They are engaged in the manufacture of hot re-rolled products of non-alloy steel falling under various Headings in Chapter 72 of the CETA Schedule. By Notification No. 33/97-C.E. (N....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der Notification No. 50/97-C.E. was available only to the goods manufactured or produced prior to 1-8-97 and cleared on or after that date. During the period of clearance of goods (August, 1997), the party satisfied this condition stipulated under Notification No. 50/97-C.E. (N.T.) as this Notification originally stood. But, much to their prejudice, the said condition came to be amended by Notific....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al authority confirmed this demand but did not impose any penalty and the first appellate authority sustained that decision. At Chennai, the adjudicating authority (Commissioner of Central Excise) confirmed the demand of duty on the Gummidipundi unit and imposed on them a penalty of Rs. 15,000/-. Hence these appeals. 2. After hearing both sides and considering their submissions, we find th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....alem, therefore, restricted the demand of duty to Rs. 300/- per M.T. After hearing both sides and considering their submissions, we find that there is hardly any valid challenge against this demand. Ld. Counsel, however, has prayed for vacating the penalty imposed by ld. Commissioner at Chennai. It is submitted that the appellants were paying duty during August, 1997 under a bona fide belief that ....