9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 523X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been brought to the statute book, penalty under that Section could be levied – penalty under Section 11AC upheld - E/2413/2001-Mum - A/1742/2005-WZB/C-II(EB) - Dated:- 9-12-2005 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Shri Moheb Ali M., JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri T. Gunasekaran, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.B. Pardeshi, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Moheb Ali M., Member (T)]. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa. In the impugned order, the Commissioner demanded central excise duty of Rs. 8,43,508.39 (Rupees eight lakhs forty-three thousand five hundred eight and thirty-nine paise only) on the goods allegedly removed without payment of duty, confiscated the goods lying in the premis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the appellant contravened Rule 9, 49, 51A, 52A, 53, 54, I73B, 173C, 173F, 173G and 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He held that the goods cleared by the appellant were manufactured inasmuch as a process of manufacturing was undertaken by the appellant on contract from the buyers; that the appellant s goods fall within the schedule of CETA and that the goods are marketable inasmuch as they were sold by the appellant to the buyer. He held that the proof that the goods marketable lies in the act and the goods by the appellant. 3. The appellant however contends that the Commissioner did not follow the principles of natural justice inasmuch as he did not give any opportunity to the appellant to put forth his case in regard to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss of manufacture was undertaken. Further, the contract between the customer and the appellant clearly shows that goods of certain specifications has to be made and supplied to the customer. The goods such as the ones supplied by the appellant are in the nature of manufactured goods. On the question of marketability, we observe that the fact that the appellant sells the goods to his customer, as pointed out by the Commissioner, is sufficient to establish marketability. Marketability does not mean that the goods should be openly bought and sold in the market. When one buyer buys the goods, the test of marketability is satisfied. The appellant s contention that another show cause notice should have been issued before de novo proceedings were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
