9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No.213/98 dated 26.6.98 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai. 2. The respondents are manufacturer of various components of fire protection system. The original authority demanded excise duty on the total value of supplies made to the buyers and- he imposed penalties under Section it 11AC of the Central Excise Act and under Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mission to the Commissioner (Appeals). The points that were brought in their appeal are fresh points and were not contended by them in the reply to the SCN to the adjudicating authority. In fact. they requested in their reply to the SCN only to refund of excess amount duty paid by them. Submissions of fresh points which were notified in the reply to the SCN are not permissible to be filed before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appeal, normally, shall not be entitled to. produce any additional evidences. In the present case there is nothing on record to show that the respondents had produced additional evidence before the Commissioner (Appeals). We are satisfied that the facts before the original authority were the same as those before the Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner (Appeals) is at liberty to examine the poi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate the value of these items and further erection and commissioning charges. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that the value of the items manufactured by the respondents only should be subjected to duty. We find the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) are in conformity with the Central Excise Law. The Revenue appeal has no merits and hence the same is rejected. Operative part pron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
