TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (12) TMI 873
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... two applications are filed seeking waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs.55.07 lakhs and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, personal penalty of Rs.1.00 lakh on Shri R.N. Basu, Director of the Applicant Company, imposed under Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. At the outset, the ld. Consultant appearing for the Applicants has su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsultant has further submitted that in any case, the said amount is still lying with the Department. He has further submitted that the applicant offers not to seek refund of the said amount during the pendency of the Appeal. He has further submitted that the excisibility of the water treatment plant has been decided by this Tribunal in the case of Ion Exchange (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....subsequently retracted. 3. The ld.A.R. appearing for the Department, has reiterated the findings of the ld. Commissioner. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. We find that the issue involved in the present case relates to excisability of water treatment plant. The Revenue's case is that the Applicant had assembled the said industrial treatment plant in their factory and thereafter, clear....