2006 (3) TMI 726

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er the Tribunal was right in sustaining the demand on the length of the gallery contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. SPBL Limited, reported in 2002 (146) E.L.T. 254? (2)     Whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the demand of duty on the length of gallery notwithstanding its contrary views regarding the maintainability of the appeal against the determination of the capacity? 3. Since the controversy is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II v. SPBL Limited, - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 254, we decide the appeal at this stage itself. 4. It is true that the orde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... raised by the appellant and confirmed the demand raised under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 96ZQ(5)(i) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 end imposed penalty of Rs. 8,06,856/- under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 7. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Mumbai-VI on 20th April, 2000, the appellant preferred appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise by his order, dated 4th December, 2000. 8. Aggrieved by the order, dated 4th December, 2000, the revenue preferred appeal....