TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 251
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orks against confirmation of demand of interest, imposition of penalty and confiscation of goods. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellants argued that they are involved in manufacture and supply of electric poles to MSEB, a government organisation. During the year 1992-93 to 1996-97 the appellants were supplying the electric poles to MSEB and availing SSI exemption. In the supply contract to MSEB there ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;ble High Court of Bombay as for most of the period for which the notice was issued, Section 11AC was not in existence, only Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules 1944 was there. However, Hon'ble High Court of Bombay directed the appellants to approach the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original with certain modifications. Interest under Section 11AB on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Works - 2007 (215) ELT 167 (SC). He further argued that penalty imposed in the impugned order is not apportioned between the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q and that Section 11AC and therefore the same cannot be upheld. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gujarat Setco Clutch Ltd. - 2008 (229) ELT 137 (Tri-Ahmd). He argued that they had deposited the entire amount of differen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upra) to assert that the if specific provisions of Rule 173Q is not cited, penalty under 173Q cannot be imposed. Revenue has not succeeded in distinguishing the fact in the instant case and thus the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court relied by the appellants becomes applicable. Consequently, penalty under Rule 173Q for the period upto 28.09.1996 is set aside. 7. The second argument of the appella....