9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (12) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not register the unit with the Central Excise authorities nor possessed any certificate. Therefore show cause notice was issued against them requiring them to show causes why the duty should not be charged for the above said process which was carried out in their factory. After adjudication, the demand of Rs. 2,97,914/- is raised against the appellants and a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- was imposed. 2. The learned Advocate Shri Raghavan appearing for the appellants contended before us that there are several people who are doing the very same business and the appellant alone is proceeded against. This point was raised before the adjudicating authority and the adjudicating authority is silent on this aspect. He pleaded that when others are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elate the entries in the statements or in the delivery challan or the labour bills, with the goods alleged to have been manufactured individual item-wise. No evidences have been let in to indicate the nature of the relationship of the Notice and the persons to whom the labour charges are alleged to have been paid for separation process as to whether it was on principal to principal basis. Hence this plea also loses its significance. He pointed out that in the impugned order it was stated that the appellant had to show that it was on principal to principal basis, which is not correct when the appellant had produced evidence to show that these goods were supplied for processing, it was for the Department to show that it was not on principa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmination is whether the duty demand in this case against the appellant holding them as the manufacturer is borne out by the evidences on record. We have perused para 12.5 of the impugned order. The learned adjudicating authority has merely stated that in his statement Shri Sundararajan stated the processes through which the copper was moulded but nowhere in the statement it was mentioned that the appellant was not carrying on the manufacture. The mere fact that the appellant had not stated in his statement that they were not the manufacturer itself will not go to show that they are the actual manufacturers. 5. Any how it is seen that the statement has not been looked into in the proper perspective. Nowhere in the statement the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able to duty. It is further seen that bi-metal scraps were sold to many parties by the manufacturers of bi-metal powder and the position should have been verified in this regard. If there is a general practice in the trade with respect to this aspect and if the Department also has not taken any proceedings against others, then this fact will be relevant for deciding the issue of limitation which was pleaded by the appellant. The learned lower authority has not adverted to this plea of the appellant which is very material for deciding the limitation aspect in this case. Therefore in view of the above reasonings we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal by remand for de novo adjudication by the adjudicating authority in terms of ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
