2017 (12) TMI 897

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, New Delhi. 2. The grievance of the appellants M/s Trusine Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and its Director Shri Vinod Kumar Saxena are that the show cause notice proposing duty demand against the appellant company was dropped by the adjudicating authority and thus, penal provisions cannot be invoked in isolation for confirmation, in absence of any duty demand. So far as the appellants herein M/s Bansal Insulation Products Pvt. Ltd., Shree Metal Industries, Shri Balkishan Bansal and Shri Devki Nandan Bansal, the submissions are that the appellants have not violated or contravened the provisions of the Central Excise Act and Rules and therefore, imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tribunal is, whether Rule 25 ibid read with Section 11AC ibid can be invoked in the circumstances of the present case for imposition of penalties against the appellants. 6. The fact is not under dispute that the appellant M/s Bansal Insulation Products Pvt. Ltd. have manufactured cable enamelled wire in their factory and on removal of the same to M/s Trusin Electronics Pvt. Ltd., had discharged appropriate Central Excise duty liability. That on receipt of said goods in the factory M/s Trusine Electronics Pvt. Ltd. the Cenvat credit was availed by it, considering the same as input. Thus, it is evident that duty paid character of cable enamelled wire and their receipt and utilisation for further manufacture of goods are not under dispute.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he context assumes some importance. The Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Ce. Ex., Bhavnagar v. Saurashtra Chemicals Limited, 2007 (212) E.L.T. 7 (S.C), after referring to its earlier decisions observed that the term "subject to" is an expression whereby limitation is expressed. It is further observed that the expression "subject to" must be given effect to. 23. In K.R.C.S. Balakrishna Chetty and Sons & Co. v. The State of Madras, AIR 1961 SC 1152, the Apex Court took the view that on a proper interpretation of Section 5 of Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, the expression "subject to" only means that the exemption under the licence is conditional upon the observance of the conditions prescribed and upon the restrictions which a....