2017 (4) TMI 1343

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri N. Jagadish, AR, for the Respondent. ORDER The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 27-2-2015 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants are registered under Central Excise for manufacture of electrical switch gears and control panels falling under Chapter 85 of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ered. Why interest should not be demanded and why penalty should not be imposed. The adjudicating authority, after due process of law, in the impugned order confirmed the demand of Rs. 4,08,799/- availed by the appellants, demanded appropriate interest and imposed equal penalty of Rs. 4,08,799/-. Aggrieved by the order-in-original, appellants filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who uphe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tal in protecting the environment and the final disposal of such industrial effluents which are toxic in nature are strictly governed by Statutory Central and State laws. He further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly held that the disposal of effluents are only post manufacture in nature and not a service used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. On the other h....