9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants. The original authority examined all the evidences and the submissions made by the appellants regarding the contention of the appellants that they were manufacturing block-board up to 31.03.2000 and there after stopped the production. This is not evidenced by the declarations filed by the appellant. The testing records and quality control records scrutinized by the Officers indicated that on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... handran, Member (T) For the Petitioner : Shri Bipin Garg, Adv For the Respondent : Shri R K Mishra, DR ORDER Per B. Ravichandran The present 2 appeals are against order dated 21.03.2006 of Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Jaipur. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of commercial plywood liable to Central Excise Duty. In December 2000 c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el for the appellant submitted:- (a) The appellants never manufactured blockboard after 01.04.2000 and as such not required to file a declaration under Rule 173 B for the said goods. (b) The appellants do not have the machinery or facility for manufacturing laminated plywood. They were only affixing film strips on the commercial plywood in order to differentiate in the open market. (c) Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ises of the appellants. The original authority examined all the evidences and the submissions made by the appellants regarding the contention of the appellants that they were manufacturing block-board up to 31.03.2000 and there after stopped the production. This is not evidenced by the declarations filed by the appellant. The testing records and quality control records scrutinized by the Officers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
