9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (BED) and Rs. 23,376.68 (SED) was confirmed on the appellants. No penalty was imposed. The order further said that for the period from 1-5-1989 onwards duty on similar clearances needs to be quantified and paid. 2. Appellants vide their letter dated 10-2-1999 has prayed for decision on merits and none appears today. 3. Heard Ms. Aruna Gupta, ld. DR . 4. We have carefully considered the records of the case. We find that the appellants have appealed mainly on two grounds as follows :- (a) that the show cause notice was with respect to denial of exemption under Notification No. 217/86 on the parts Fire Extinguishers because the final product namely Fire Extinguishers were exempted under Notfn. No. 111/88, dated 1-3-1988. However, the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the second ground of appeal, namely, that the orders go beyond the ambit of show cause notice .The show cause notice has clearly alleged that what they have cleared is parts of fire extinguishers and therefore duty has been demanded thereon. Both order-in-original and order-in-appeal have also held that what they have cleared is parts of fire extinguishers and have therefore confirmed duty demands. Since the allegation in the show cause notice viz. that they are clearing parts of fire extinguishers has been upheld by both order-in-original and order-in-appeal, therefore there is no merit in the party s contention that these orders go beyond the show cause notice. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions and records of the case. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record that such parts were indeed sold to consumers for replacement of defective parts in the fire extinguishers earlier supplied by the appellants. No evidence to the contrary has been led by the appellants in this appeal. Therefore, on this ground also, there is no merit in the appeal. 8. We, therefore, conclude that the show cause notice clearly alleged that what was cleared was parts of Fire extinguishers, and the order-in-appeal impugned has also found them to be parts of fire extinguishers for the reasons recorded therein, therefore it is also not correct to hold that the said order impugned has traversed beyond the show cause notice. 9. In view of the aforesaid findings and analysis, we do not find any merit in the appeal and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
