2004 (1) TMI 622

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Y : Shri V. Sridharan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri J.B. George, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)]. - The appellant manufacture M.S. Angles on job work conversion basis for M/s. TISCO. During the month of December, 1994, they had issued duty paying invoices showing M/s. Tisco name as customer and consignee as M/s. Sharda Ispat Ltd. Kamptee (the appellants them .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... und by the Commissioner. Since removal within the factory of production is also a removal as held by the Apex Court in the case of J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills v. UOI [1987 (32) E.L.T. 234 (S.C.)] there can be no objection if the customer i.e. TISCO name is shown and consignee and destination address remain the same. Nothing is amiss under Central Excise Rule, 1944. In fact after amendment of Rul .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... suspicious of certain other commercial reasons for the appellants and TISCO to have undertaken this procedure. (iv) If appellants have been considered to have not removed the goods, then taking credit of duty payment would be available since invoices issued are required to be accounted and cancelled. There is no Revenue loss in appellants debiting the duty and taking credit in the registers witho .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X