9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent : Shri V C Khole, AR JUDGEMENT Per: Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned orders wherein duty demands have been confirmed against them on the premise that the appellant has undertaken the activities of reprocessing of the goods. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are job worker of M/s Asian Paints (I) Ltd. On the direction of M/s Asian Paints, the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re amount of credit taken by them. Accordingly, impugned proceedings were initiated and duty demands against the appellant were confirmed along with the interest. Penalties equivalent to duty was also confirmed by way of these two impugned orders. Aggrieved by the orders, the appellant is before me. 3. Shri Vishal Kumar, authorized representative of the appellant appeared and submits that as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he difference between re-packing and re-processing under the excise law. Further, it is contended that the appellant is not having any facility for reprocessing but they have facilities only for repacking. No evidence has been produced by the Revenue as the appellant has done the reprocessing. In these circumstances, the demand on account of manufacturing is not sustainable. 4. On the other hand, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be taken as evidence for ascertain the fact that the appellant has taken the goods for reprocessing of the goods. Therefore, it is held that the appellant has done only the repacking from retail packs to bulk packs of the impugned goods which does not amounts to manufacture during the impugned period. Therefore, the demand of duty is not sustainable, consequently, penalty is also not sustainable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
