2016 (12) TMI 787

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8.2007 reported in 2008 (223) ELT 630 (Tri.-Chennai) was under challenge. The appeal was filed by Revenue in Civil Appeal Nos.2878-2879/2008 disposed on 10.8.2001. There were two issues before the Apex Court. The first one was whether M/s.Southern Press Tolls (SPT, for short) was entitled to exemption under Notification No.164/87 dt. 10.6.87 for the goods cleared to M/s.Universal Radiators Ltd. (URL, for short) without observing the Chapter X Procedure of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The second issue was whether penalty was leviable on M/s.URL under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order of Tribunal and remanded the matter to Tribunal for consideration afresh. 2.  Against the same ord....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is a penalty on URL to the extent of Rs. 5 lakhs under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 7.  Learned counsel for both appellants submits that when Revenue could not prove its case making the allegation that SPT was manufacturer of the goods, there shall not be any liability of this appellant and no penal consequence of law shall flow against both appellants. 8.  To the above fundamental proposition made by learned counsel, Revenue was repeatedly asked whether any materials are before it to show that SPT was manufacturer of the goods in question and whether there was any infrastructure to do so. But all along there is no reply from Revenue. Accordingly, no cogent and credible evidence came from Revenue to prove their c....