2002 (12) TMI 466

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .B. Nair, Member (T)]. This appeal of M/s. Jindal Strips Limited is directed against duty demand of about Rs. 3.5 lakhs and imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on them. 2. The facts leading to the passing of the impugned order are that, upon scrutiny of the sale records maintained by the appellant, the Central Excise Officers noticed that they had disposed of different items of parts and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y had dismantled the old kiln, used part of the items recovered and had disposed of the remaining items after minor operation such as polishing, cleaning, etc. In the adjudication proceedings, the Commissioner accepted the explanation and allowed benefit in respect of certain items which had been co-related as emerging from the dismantling of old kiln, involving duty demand of about Rs. 41,000/-. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iption of the goods given in the purchase documents. Further, the Range Supdt. On factual verification submitted that the goods covered under different sale invoices are distinct, identifiable, marketable products, having a different name, character or use and totally different from the goods described in the corresponding purchase vouchers produced by the noticee. Hence the claim of the noticee t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... steel belets and slabs. They do not manufacture the items alleged in the impugned show cause notice. Those items have arisen during the course of dismantling purchased old kilns, etc., and the disposal of such items cannot attract Central Excise duty as that duty is incidental to manufacturing of goods and not resale of purchased goods. 4. We have perused the records and have considered the subm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re no reasons for holding that the items in question had been clandestinely manufactured in the appellant s factory and removed. It is in the nature of dismantling machinery that the items obtained will not have the same description as the items dismantled. A charge of manufacture has to be supported by more tangible and positive evidence. The finding in the order, therefore, cannot be sustained. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X