9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s regarding purchase of capital machinery and electricity consumption during the year 2000 - Decided in favor of the assessee. - E/1286-1288/2007-EX(DB) - Final Order Nos. A/53841-53843/2015-EX(DB) - Dated:- 21-12-2015 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) and B. Ravichandran, Member (T) Ms. Neha Meena, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.K. Grover, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : B. Ravichandran, Member (T)]. - These three appeals were filed against order dated 7-2-2007 and Commissioner (A) II New Delhi. M/s. Sudhir Gensets, New Delhi, the main appellant in this case, are engaged in the manufacture of DG sets in their unit in New Delhi. They have another unit at Silwasa. The present dispute relates to the unit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ems for the period July, 2000 to September, 2000. However, the appellants contention is that prior to July, 2000 they have been procuring these canopies either on purchase or through job workers. They are not involved in the manufacture and as such no duty liability arises on these items. 3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant Shri B.L. Narsimhan submitted that the impugned order passed ex parte, is not legally sustainable as the Commissioner (A) erred in appreciating the facts relevant to the case. Though many points were raised in their appeal. The ld. Counsel mainly emphasized on the following : (1) The appellant did not have facility for manufacturing canopy at their New Delhi unit till July, 2000. Prior to that date these canop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctivity for levy of duty does not arise. (3) The ld. Counsel submitted that Shri Sushil Kumar, the then General Manager of the main appellant unit, had passed away on 4-9-2011. He submitted a copy of death certificate dated 19-9-2011. The Counsel pleaded that the case against the said appellant will abate. 4. The ld. AR Shri Grover reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard both the sides and examined the appeal records. The appellant is not contesting duty liability on the acoustic enclosures manufactured by them at their New Delhi unit from July, 2000 to September, 2001. The present dispute is only relevant to the period prior to July, 2000, we find that the appellants have strongly contested the payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Section XVI has no relevance as the product procured by them cannot be called semi-finished or unfinished goods. We have also perused the invoices submitted by the ld. Counsel to state that the appellant did procure acoustic canopy for DG sets from vendors or job workers. We find in all these cases the description of the goods procured is only mentioned as acoustic canopy for DG Sets. In the absence of any supporting evidence adduced by the Revenue to establish any manufacture of impugned goods by the appellant at their Delhi unit prior to July, 2000 and taking into consideration the evidences submitted by the appellants regarding purchase of capital machinery and electricity consumption during the year 2000, we find that the demand for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
