9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. ORDER Heard both sides. 2. Shri J. Shankararaman, learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that the impugned order has been passed pursuant to the Tribunal's remand order. However, according to him, the adjudicating Commissioner has not examined the matter afresh and has merely confirmed the earlier order of his predecessor. He states that the appellants had recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the penalty, fine and interest levied on them. 3. Shri V.V. Hariharan, learned Jt. CDR appearing for the Department states that the appellants have not maintained any records in respect of the goods received by them and repaired by them except for a part of such goods on which they have paid the duty. He states that as per the statements of the company officials, all goods received for repair ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t from that, the statements referred to by the learned Jt. CDR appear to be stating in general terms that machineries taken for remaking are dismantled and good parts are put to further use as defective parts are discarded. The statements as stated above do not show that every item brought under Rule 173H was dismantled. 5. We also find that under Rule 173L where a refund is allowed in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents have been used, they have paid the duty. In respect of the balance quantity where minor repairs have been done, there is no separate record. We are not shown any Rules or circulars under which separate records are required to be maintained for goods which are repaired, reprocessed short of manufacturing. Hence, we are of the view that the Department has not established the case that the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir duty liability and have paid the same. It is seen from the appeal filed by the appellants that they have admitted and paid Rs. 4,54,646/-. Since this amount has been paid on 23-3-1995 before the provision for payment of interest was introduced in the Central Excise Law, no interest is payable in respect of this amount. The imposition of fine and penalty as also demand of interest made in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
