TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (7) TMI 161
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of bolts from CTD bars, which are supplied to Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem. By an order dated 29-3-2006 passed under Section 11A of the Act, Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad-III, Commissionerate (for short, 'the Additional Commissioner') created a demand of Rs.35,55,127/- against the petitioner and also imposed penalty of an equivalent amount by invoking Section 11AC and further penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the ground that it had manufactured and cleared goods during the period from 1-9-2003 to 31-3-2004 without paying duty. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals - III),....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....el for the petitioner invited the Court's attention to order dated 7-8-2006 passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No.Excise/351/2006 - The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Guntur v. The Andhra Pradesh Heavy Machinery and Engineering Limited to show that on an earlier occasion, the Tribunal had rejected the revenue's plea on the issue of levy of duty on "W Straps" and "Roof Bolts", and argued that the Tribunal is not at all justified in taking opposite view in the petitioner's case. Learned counsel emphasised that the petitioner and M/s. Andhra Pradesh Heavy Machinery and Engineering Limited are engaged in the manufacture of identical goods, which are supplied to the common consumer namely, Singareni Collieries Company Limited, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se. He submitted that the judgment of the Full Bench in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CCE (supra) is binding on the smaller Benches of the Tribunal and no illegibility was committed by the Tribunal by recording a prima facie finding that threaded roof bolts manufactured by the petitioner from CTD bars are excisable. Sri Rajashekar Reddy pointed out that in the case of M/s. Andhra Pradesh Heavy Machinery and Engineering Limited, the Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the demand created by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that revenue had not produced any evidence to show that the goods manufactured by the assessee constituted an excisable commodity, and argued that the order passed in that case cannot be treated as a prec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as to safeguard the interests of revenue. Provided further that where an application is filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) for dispensing with the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied under the first proviso, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall, where it is possible to do so, decide such application within thirty days from the date of its filing." 7. An analysis of the above reproduced provision makes it clear that the person desirous of appealing against the demand created under the Act and the Rules or penalties levied by the competent authority has to deposit the entire amount of duty and/or penalty. However, the appellate authority and the Tribunal are vested with the power to dispense with the requirement of deposit if i....