9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r]. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of valves. On 19-2-1998, the factory of the appellants was visited by the officers of the revenue department and on verification of the stock, it was found that 501 pcs. of valves were found in excess in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted and after going through these processes, they will reach the stage of removal. He also relies upon the classification list filed by the appellants for the year 1998 where the manufacturing processes were shown as machining, fitting, testing, dressing, pending and packing. His submission is that in reply to show cause notice, the appellants took a specific plea that these valves were yet to un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ished stage. He submits that these unfinished goods are to be entered somewhere in their statutory record and reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 6. Heard both sides. 7. In this case, the contention of the appellants is that the valves, in question, did not reached the stage of removal, therefore, they are in semi-finished condition and are not liable for confiscation under Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g authority or the appellate authority in respect of these pleas taken by the appellants. The Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Southern Steel Ltd. (supra), relied upon by the appellants, held that when the goods were in the factory and had not reached the stage of removal, they are not liable for confiscation under Rule 173Q of the Rules. The Tribunal followed this decision in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
