9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtaken by the appellants amounted to manufacture - The finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) is that the goods were removed after the duty had already been paid - Removal of goods received back from Sales Depot for reconditioning did not require payment of duty again - Due procedure had been followed in the matter - Hence, there was no case for demand of duty. - C.E.A. No.210 of 2010 (O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unds of appeal that the party has failed to discharge the burden that the goods received back were duty paid as required in para (i) of the said Trade Notice and prior permission C.E.A. No.210 of 2010 of the Commissioner, Central Excise was not obtained as per para (ii) of the said Trade Notice? (ii). Whether, the burden of proof that the goods received back were duty paid goods and also that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee was upheld as under:- I have carefully examined the case records. In the show cause notice dated 8.2.2007 duty amounting to Rs.1,17,412/- involved on the clearances of excisable goods valued at Rs.7,19,422/- effected by the appellant during the period January 2006 to October 2006 was demanded. The goods in question were the goods received back by the appellants from their sales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anded on removal of such goods. The appellants also submit that they have obtained the necessary permission as required under Trade Notice 3/2002 dated 30.1.2002 from the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh under this Office letter C.No.IV/ (16) Tech/182/06/95 dated 8.1.07. The appellants submitted a copy of this permission. They contended that there was no case for demand of duty or imposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Tribunal. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. The finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) is that the goods were removed after the duty had already been paid. Removal of goods received back from Sales Depot for reconditioning did not require payment of duty again. Due procedure had been followed in the matter. In these circumstances, there was no case for dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
