9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 818X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... early shows that manufacturing activity was not being done at the construction site but at a separate khata Number and separate site was taken for such fabrication which has nothing but appellant factory site. Such approval granted by the appellant's customer to the appellant will not change the scenario vis-a-vis their excise liability - prima facie case is against the assessee - Amount to be deposited as directed by the tribunal is not unreasonable. - Misc. Application Nos. 55752, 55753 of 2014, Central Excise Appeal Nos. 55971, 55972 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 5-12-2014 - Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) And R. K. Singh, Member (T),JJ. For the Appellants : Shri Sujit Ghosh with Ms Mannat Waraich, Advs. For the Respondent : Shri Ranj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exempted vide Notification No.1/2011-CE(NT). As such, he submits that as the attention of the Bench could not be drawn to the above Notification they have filed the Miscellaneous Applications and that in terms of the said Notification, the condition of the pre-deposit of ₹ 40 lakhs may be withdrawn. 3. Countering the arguments, the ld. A.R. Shri Ranjan Khanna appearing for Revenue draws our attention to the impugned order and submits that the goods were not manufactured at site but were admittedly manufactured in the appellant's factory, in which case, the benefit of the said Notification would not be available to them. 4. After hearing both the sides, we find that though the Notification in question was never referred to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the appellant in their factory and not at the construction site, in which case, the benefit of notification would not be available to them. We are of the prima facie of the view that inasmuch as the pipes are mainly manufactured in the factory the decision of the Delhi High Court relied upon by the appellant would not be applicable, At this stage, ld. Advocate for the appellant insists that the site for manufacture of goods was shifted from the construction site to the present site with the approval of the project officer, which was on account of the difficulties expressed by the appellant as there was shortage of space and continuous flow of traffic. 6. We find that said letter instead of helping the appellant acts adverse to thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
