2008 (2) TMI 333

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....duty of Rs. 1,30,630/-. Penalty of Rs. 60,000/- under Section 173Q of the Central Excise Rules and further penalty of Rs. 1,30,630/- equal to excise duty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was also imposed on the respondent. Interest at the rate of 24% in terms of Section 11AB of the Act was also awarded. Besides, penalty of Rs. 3000/- was also imposed on Pankaj Choksi, the power of attorney holder of the respondent. The sum of Rs. 1,38,360/- was also appropriated against the duty demand. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that verification of the respondent's premises by the officer of the Central Excise Department revealed that the respondent was engaged in the manufacture of cooling towers of capacity ranging betwee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4. The Commissioner in the impugned order however held that the respondent does not have any machinery or mechanism and electricity available in the premises and they cannot be said to be carrying on any manufacturing activity. They are simply traders buying goods from one and selling them to the other for profit, and accordingly set aside the adjudication order. 5. On behalf of the Revenue reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of BPL India Ltd. v. CCE, 2002 (143) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), in support of the contention that manufacturing activity can be carried on without the use of power. We are of the view that the question as to whether particular set of activities amounts to manufacture or not will depend on fact....