2013 (5) TMI 624

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Heard both sides. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of wheel rims for harvester and wheel rims for animal driven vehicle which are exempted for payment of duty. The demand is with effect from 1.4.2000 on the ground that applicant availing credit in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 8 in Appeal No. E/3280/2006 remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to verify the evidence produced by the appellant in respect of their contention that during the period in dispute exempted goods are manufactured out of the inputs on which credit has not been availed. In pursuance of the remand order, the contention is that in the present impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) held t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on of Rule 57AD of Central Excise Rules. The contention is that as the applicant opted with effect from 1.4.2000 not to maintain separate records therefore the appellants are liable to pay 8% of the sale price of the exempted goods as per the provisions of Central Excise Rules. 6. The only issue in respect of appeal is whether the applicant manufactured the exempted goods during the period in dis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X