9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (4) TMI 284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imited (hereinafter CIMMCO ) and one by Man Structural Limited (hereinafter MAN ) against the Order Nos. 10/81 and 11/81, dated 10-12-1981 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur. 2. Shri C.L. Sharma, Manager (Accounts) appeared on behalf of CIMMCO at the personal hearing before the Board on 16-4-81. Man sent a written Memorandum and has waived the personal hearing. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MCO (on job charges). The intake gates after completion, were being supplied to N.T.P.C.L. by `Man directly, on behalf of CIMMCO on payment of Central Excise duty. The duty amount and the job charges were being subsequently recovered by `Man from CIMMCO. The Department was of the view that this procedure could only have been followed if both the appellants had opted for permission to work under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich would be evidenced by the correspondence dated 6-8-81 and 16-9-81 from the Central Excise authorities to them. This correspondence would prove that the Department itself was of the opinion that rule 56-C was not applicable in their case. Otherwise they would have asked CIMMCO and Man to immediately start functioning under rule 56-C procedure. Therefore, the imposition of the penalties on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
