9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (1) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. [Order per : K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T)]. This appeal arises out of a situation under Rule 56B of Central Excise Rules, which inter alia permits a manufacturer to remove excisable goods which are in the nature of semi-finished goods for carrying out certain manufacturing processes to some other premises of his or of another person and to bring back such goods to h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... records, that most of the components received by them were used by them in their own factory for manufacture of carburettors and that no duty was paid on such components. Proceedings were initiated by issue of show cause notice dated 13-2-1990 demading duty of Rs. 1,95,366 for the period 1-3-1986 to 31-3-1986 on the charge that they had suppressed facts from department and wrongly availed Rule 56B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h inputs. Merely because appellants had not claimed exemption under Notification 217/86, it should not be denied. It was further urged that the dispute is ultimately revenue neutral as the goods are eligible for Modvat credit. 3. Ld. SDR Shri V.K. Puri, contended that the appellants had acted in conscious violation of the permission given under Rule 56B as it was given for processing and return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs in Madhwas factory. This happened during March to July, 1986 and came to light only on check of appellants records by the officers in September, 1986 on gathering intelligence about misuse of Rule 56B facility by the appellants. In such a context we are not impressed by the submission that the appellants are covered by Notification No. 217/86 and that they had filed supplementary classification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
