TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 515
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....331/- demanded from them for the period from April 2004 to March 2005 and equal amount of penalty imposed on them. The appellant in the connected appeal No. E/406/2011 is a Director of TEPL who seeks waiver and stay in respect of a penalty of Rs.5 lakhs imposed on him. The appellant in appeal No. E/281/2012, hereinafter referred to as TTIPL, seeks waiver and stay mainly in respect of duty of Rs.1,51,02,815/- demanded from them for the period from October 2005 to December 2006 and equal amount of penalty imposed on them. TTIPL had paid an amount of Rs.10 lakhs as evidenced by TR-6 challans dated 25.9.2009. After a perusal of the records and hearing both sides, we are of the view that the appeals need to be disposed of at this stage itself, f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No.39 of the second notification. As the chassis/prime mover was duty-paid and no credit of such duty or of any duty paid on other inputs used in the manufacture of the final product was taken by the appellants, the relevant condition attached to the exemption notifications was also complied with by the appellants. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellants argued that they were not liable to pay CE duty on the final products in question. Per contra, the learned Additional Commissioner (AR) argued that, as trailers were specifically classified under heading 8716 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, they were per se chargeable to CE duty. Such a trailer when coupled with a chassis/prime mover could not be considered as a body built ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e benefit of Notification No.5/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 (Sl. No.39), which claim was also based on Chapter Note 3 and classification of the final product under heading 8704. Thus, it appears, in respect of the finished goods cleared to their customers, both the assessees raised a classification dispute vis--vis the proposal in the show-cause notices for recovery of duty in terms of heading 8716. But the adjudicating authority chose to proceed on the premise that there was no classification dispute. It classified the trailers under heading 8716 and demanded duty thereon without even attempting to consider the above contentions raised by the parties. 4. It further appears from the records that, in both the cases, undervaluation of the goods wa....