2008 (10) TMI 227

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....venue. They are also taken up though they do not figure in today's cause list, with the consent of both sides. The first of these appeals has been filed by M/s. Devi Metal Works and is directed against a demand of duty of Rs. 1,03,978/- from them, applicable interest thereon and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on the appellant . Appeal No. E/482/2006 is directed against a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed on Shri M. Ramesh, Proprietor of M/s. Ganesh Industries. The Revenue has filed Appeal Nos. 599 to 601/2006 seeking to restore respectively, penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed under Section 11AC on M/s. Devi Metal Works, Rs. 25,000/- imposed on Shri M. Suresh, Proprietor of M/s. Devi Metal Works and Rs. 25,000/- imposed on Shri M. Ramesh, Propr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....penalty under Section 11AC of the Act. In addition, penalty of Rs. 25,000/- each was imposed on Shri M/s. Suresh, Proprietor of M/s. Devi Metal Works and on Shri M/s. Ramesh, Proprietor of M/s. Ganesh Industries. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the demand of Rs. 1,03,978/- from M/s. Devi Metal Works was in accordance with law and affirmed the same. He ordered that it was open to M/s. Ganesh Industries to seek abatement of duty liability for the material period and seek refund of Rs. 90,000/- paid by them under the compounded levy scheme. He decided that the appellants could not avail the facility of job work under Notification No. 214/86 as the duty liability of one of the manufacturers was determined with refer....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t on the duty demanded and the penalties imposed on M/s. Devi Metal Works and the Proprietor of M/s. Ganesh Industries were also not sustainable. 3. The learned SDR reiterates the findings contained in the impugned order. 4. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions by both sides. There is no dispute that the appellants M/s. Devi Metal Works had only converted aluminium plates into sheets on job work basis during the material period. There is no demand for clearances of such aluminium sheets by M/s. Devi Metal Works; the demand is on aluminium circles manufactured by M/s. Ganesh Industries during the material period out of the aluminium sheets supplied by M/s. Devi Metal Works. As the aluminium circles were....