2020 (3) TMI 311

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has held as follows: I) I confirm Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,85,35,347/- (Rupees Two Crore Eighty Five Lac Thirty Five Thousand Three Hundred Forty Seven only) against M/s Uma Synthetics Pvt Ltd. for the period from 1.4.93 to 31.3.96 under Rule 9(2) read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. II) I also confirm Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,84,93,496/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty Four Lac Ninety Three Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Six Only) against M/s Manika Processors, Amritsar for the period from 1.4.93 to 30.4.95 under Rule 9(2) read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. III) I also impose personal penalty of Rs. 2,85,35,347/- (Rupees Two Crore Eighty Five Lac Thirty Five Thousand....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ated 04.04.2019 setting aside the demand of duty and imposed penalties. Appeal filed by the present Appellant was dismissed for the reason that the Appellant had not made the pre-deposit as was directed by the Tribunal vide its Order dated 10.02.2000. Against this order, directing to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 10 lac, the Appellant filed a CWP before Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Hon'ble High Court reduced the amount to Rs. 5 lac, which to was not deposited within the time prescribed. The Appellant sought for extension of the time for making the pre-deposit from the High Court. After considering the submissions made, the High Court extended the time to make the pre-deposit and directed that the Appeal earlier dismissed by the Trib....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e exemption in respect of cotton fabrics manufactured without the use and add of power. Hence the case of the Appellant needs to be looked into. 4.1 We have considered the impugned order and the submissions made by both the sides during the course of arguments. 4.2 We find that the issue involved in the present Appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal referred to in case of other two co-noticees, where in para 7, the Tribunal has held as follow: "7. We take note of the fact that the appellant since very beginning has been claiming that the electricity charges were only towards the electricity used by them for fans / exhaust fans. The normal expenditure on electricity for lighting purchased which cannot by an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant is available out of 559 entries. The balance fabric was of cotton fabric only as per record. It is also a matter of record that electricity has been used by the appellant only for lighting, fans and running of exhaust fans etc which cannot be equated to use of electricity / power in the processing of fabrics. The use of steam through boiler in the process of cotton fabrics is otherwise also permissible as per the conditions in the exemption notification. We do not find that appellants have violated any of the condition of exemption notification. We also take note of the fact that there is no mis-declaration as register of 'goods received and delivered' have specific mention of type of fabrics used in processing of such fabrics and, ....