2016 (6) TMI 464

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ondent : 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 certain verifications were done in the premises of the appellant. Certain unaccounted stock of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd 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) The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to analyze and appreciate the submissions made by the appellant before .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lants 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 various dates' samples of block-boards were drawn for testing. These facts are contrary t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X