9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal has been directed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original saddling the appellants with total duty demand of Rs. 91,996.35. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that the machines in question were imported by the appellants on payment of duty and after taking Modvat credit in accordanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2000, these machines were nowhere found installed in the factory; rather these were shown in the record as lying in stock. The plea of the appellants that the machines were sent for repair to their NOIDA unit and as such, no penal action against them under Rule 57AC for demanding duty could be taken in my view, cannot be accepted taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances. There is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the NOIDA unit, after repair till 24-11-2000, the date when the officers visited the factory. If the goods had been actually sent for repair, these were to be received back by them, within reasonable time. No documents has also been placed on the record by them to show the natural type of repair, the NOIDA unit was required to carry out which took that much long time. From the perusal of the show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts to another unit without following the proper procedure. The appellants even did not put up appearance before the adjudicating authority in spite of ample opportunities given to them. They only appeared before the Commissioner (Appeals). The fact that the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order of the adjudicating authority by discussing only one ground that proper procedure was not follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
