2007 (8) TMI 345

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... alleging that the appellant was not entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 208/83-C.E., dated 1-8-1983 on the final product falling under Tariff Item No. 25(9)(ii). Allegation was that the appellant M/s. Jay Mahakali Rolling Mills had contravened the provisions of Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short the 'Rules') read with Section 6 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (in short the 'Act') and Rules 173B; 53 read with 173G(4); 9(1), 49, 52A read with 173G(1), 173G(2) and 174F; 54 read with 173F(3) of the Rules and thereby committed the offence of the nature described in clauses (a), (b), (c) & (d) of sub rule (1) of Rule 173(Q) of the Rules by reasons of wilful misstatement, suppression of facts with intent to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8.898.80. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 75,000/-. 3.In the appeal before the High Court stands taken before the Adjudicating Authority and CEGAT were reiterated. The High Court by the impugned order held that there was no basis to accept the contention that the notification was intended to be given retrospective effect. The writ petition was dismissed. 4.In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the view of the authority, the CEGAT and High Court cannot be maintained. The amendment brought about by Notification No. 101/87-C.E. dated 27-3-1987 was merely clarificatory. The CEGAT wrongly held that the said notification was operating with prospective effect. Material on record pointed to the contrary. Learne....