2016 (10) TMI 1083

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Table below : Table : Details of the Appeals & Amounts involved S. No. Appeal No. Arising out of Order No., date & passed by Appellants Period  involved Duty/Penalty  (in Rs.) 1. E/879/2000 Order  (Original) No. 05/2000,  dated  29-3-2000 M/s. Unimetal Ispat Ltd. Feb., 1995 to Dec., 1995 & Jan., 1996 Duty  (i) 5,56,596/- (ii) 1,09,48,672/- Penalty : Rs. 1 crore 2. E/877/2000 -do- Mr.  Mastan Reddy - Penalty : Rs. 1 lakh 3. E/1003/2003 O-I-A No. 198/2003-C.E., dated  26-6-2003 M/s. Unimetal Ispat Ltd. Jan., 1996, Feb. & Mar., 1996 Duty : Rs. 4,80,400/- 4. E/79/2004 -do- -do- -do- -do- 2. The matter mainly concerns with the benefit of Notification No.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....5/2000, dated 29-3-2000 again confirmed the duty, penalty etc. against the appellants. Hence the appellants filed these appeals before the Tribunal against the Order (Original) dated  29-3-2000 passed by the Commissioner. 4.3 The similar issue is also involved in the appeals (E/1003/2003 & E/79/2004) filed by the appellant against the Order-in-Appeal No. 198/2003-C.E., dated 26-6-2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mangalore. All these four appeals have the common issue; therefore we are deciding them by this common order. 5. The appellants represented by the learned advocate, Shri N. Natarajan inter alia pleads as follows : (i)      They are appealing against the demand of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the findings of the lower authorities. He further inter alia submits as follows : (i)      The case is based on the intelligence that the appellants' unit has been evading duty of Central Excise by manipulating the test reports. The appellants cannot question the right of the Department to send the samples for retesting, when they had the intelligence on misuse of facilities of notification by the appellants' unit. (ii)    Samples were sent to the different laboratories and the results are against the appellants and wherever the results were in favour, the benefit of exemption has been given to the appellants. (iii)   The language of the notification is very clear that if phosphorous con....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ification No. 99/93-C.E., dated 7-12-1993 says that wherever the item, foundry grade pig iron, has phosphorous content of 0.2% and above, the item will have the benefit of exemption from the whole of the duty of Central Excise. 8.2 From the facts on record, it is clear that the appellants' unit has been given the benefit of notification wherever test results find that phosphorous content in the product is not less than 0.2% or in other words, if phosphorus content is 0.2% and above. 9. The appellants' contention is that even when phosphorous content is between 0.15% and 0.19%, they should be given the benefit as if phosphorus content is 0.2% and above. This contention of the appellants does not have sufficient force for its acce....