2006 (12) TMI 352

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rawat, Advocate & Partha Banerjee, for the Appellant. S/Shri P.K. Das, JDR & J.K. Jha, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. -  Since the issue involved in all these three appeals is same, we are taking up them for passing in a common order. In terms of the impugned orders, the appellants are required to pre-deposit duty amount and penalty as mentioned be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... were exempted from duty liability. Prior to 28-2-1993 while the wagons were dutiable, the exemption was provided to the parts manufactured in the factory by virtue of Notification No. 217/86-C.E. Since the wagons were exempted, revenue contended that the exemption for parts would not be available. Consequently, the demands were  slapped on the appellant. Penalties have also been imposed. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that for the period intervening the two notifications, no duty could be demanded on these parts. In those cases the relevant notification were 46/94-C.E. dated 1-3-94 and 95/94-C.E. dated 25-4-94. In the first notification, there was an omission with regard to the exemption of the parts manufactured. This was noticed and the anomaly was removed by issue of the subsequent notification but the Reve....