9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Shri N. Jagdish, Superintendent(AR) JUDGEMENT Per : B.S.V.MURTHY; The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of programmable logic controllers (PLC) classifiable under Chapter 90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (Tariff). During the period from April 2007 to January 2012, appellant supplied manufactured PLC systems and it is their submission that they had also supplied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Ltd. (BTPL) (customer of appellant) on account of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (DMRC). CECPL billed to appellant and shipped the goods directly to BTPL. The vendor supplied the goods to BTPL at the site and has raised invoice No.199 dt. 29/01/2010 on the appellant. The appellant has sold the goods to BTPL without taking delivery and raised an invoice No.001557/2009-10 dt. 09/02/2010 to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exemption certificate could not be produced at the time of removal. CECPL delivery challan No.119 indicates that the goods were shipped directly from its premises and received by BTPL at DMRC site. 2.3. During the relevant period, similar types of transactions have taken place as a regular trade practice. In all such types of transactions, appellant is not the manufacturer of the goods and the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority at the time of adjudication of the case. It was also submitted that there is no evidence to show that appellants have manufactured those items or they were received by the appellants. It was also submitted that on the bought out items, excise duty had already been paid and therefore question of payment of excise duty again does not arise. It was pointed out by referring to the show-cause no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
