2007 (2) TMI 497

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - In this case, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 35,118/- and imposed penalty of equal amount of duty for removal of 291 numbers of telephone sets without payment of duty. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,000/- under Rule 173Q and 226 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 for non-accountal of excisable goods manufact....

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 bonding store room for want of sufficient space and there is no evidence of attempt to clear the goods clandestinely. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd. v. CCE, 2006 (197) E.L.T. 320 (S.C.). He also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bhillai Conductors (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur, 2000 (125) E.L.T. 781 (Tri.)....