9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri S. Arulsamy, DR, for the Respondents. [Order per : T.P. Nambiar, Member (J)]. - The present appeal has been [filed] against the order passed by the adjudicating authority wherein duty demanded is Rs. 4,96,157.43 and penalty levied is Rs. 10,000/-. The allegation against the appellants in brief is that the appellants manufactured springs and holders falling within 7616.90 of the CET, 1985 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose of anodising springs and holders are required for providing support to the needles during anodising. It is therefore, clear that this system, which is manufactured by the appellants are for the purpose of anodising the needles and therefore, it cannot be said that these are not goods. The findings of the learned lower authority that these are goods therefore cannot be faulted with. 4. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said item. (2) Manner of disposal of the same when they are worn out. To this the appellants have replied in terms of their letter dated 23-5-1990. It is therefore, clear that the department had the knowledge about the activities of the appellants on 23-5-1990 itself. The learned Consultant at this juncture stated that the letter of the department is dated 8-5-1990 and therefore, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve not shown the inputs. Therefore, this was with an intent to evade payment of duty. In the premises. we confirm the duty demanded from 4/87 to 7-5-1990. The activities of the appellants from 8-5-1990 was within the knowledge of the department as the appellants have also furnished the information sought for by the department on 23-5-1990 in response to the letter of the department dated 8-5-1990 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
