9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; and Bank of India, Barabanki respectively. But the said sales were willfully suppressed. The installation and testing charges are not shown separately by the appellant in the tenders, while they have paid duty on the invoices after deducting the same from the price which is not as per provisions of the Central Excise law. No bifurcation was mentioned as per section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – Decided against the Assessee. - Central Excise Appeal No.-20 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 19-7-2013 - Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan And Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra,JJ. For the Appellant : Ratnesh Chandra For the Respondent : Rajesh Singh Chauhan ORDER (Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra, J) Present appeal under section 35 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel also submits that a prayer was made on 19.03.2013 with respect to summoning of documents from the respondent, but no heed was paid by the Tribunal, rather it was presumed to be an abuse of the process of the law and a specific finding was recorded that in the absence of the material to show separability of contract of excisable goods from installation and testing charge activity claim is not acceptable. It is also a submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that department wrongly alleged that installation and testing charges should form part of assessable value. So, the demand of Rs.19,58,726/- is not sustainable in the eye of law. According to him, supply of the D. G. sets to the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited in fact is an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... written statement, as confessed before the authority below. Similarly, another D. G. Set was sold to Sri Ajay Kumar Jain Barabanki without issuing any Central Excise invoice and without payment of Central Excise duty. Further, two D. G. Sets were cleared to La Martenies Boy's Inter College, Lucknow; and Bank of India, Barabanki respectively. But the said sales were willfully suppressed. Moreover, it appears that the appellant is enjoying the benefit of SSI exemption, where prescribed limit is one Crore, but assessee has sold final product value of Rs.1,11,30,381/-, which is exceeding the prescribed limit. The D.G. Sets sold were not reflected in the daily stock register RG-I on 26.07.2002, which shows nil balance. No explanation was given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
