9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duction) to independent buyers such as M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. etc. In this background, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly applied the decision of the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of M/s Ispat Industries Vs. CCE, Raigad [2007 (2) TMI 5 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], wherein the Hon’ble Tribunal held that The provision of rule 4 are in any case to be preferred over the prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 157 158/CE/Appl/Dlh/IV/2007 dated 15.01.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-I. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of rough iron forging and M.V. Parts. It was observed that the appellants sold their finished goods during the year 2000-01 (from 1 st July, 2000) to 2004- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osting of the products in question as per norms laid down in CAS-4 was done. The audit was conducted by M/s V. Kumar Associates, Cost Accountant and submitted a report dated 12.07.2005. On the basis of said report, two show cause notices both dated 29.07.2005 were issued to the appellants in which Central Excise duty of ₹ 14,62,857/- and ₹ 10,50,676/- for the period from July, 2000 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... production) to independent buyers such as M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. etc. In this background, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly applied the decision of the Larger Bench of the Hon ble Tribunal in the case of M/s Ispat Industries Vs. CCE, Raigad - 2007 (209) ELT 185(Tri-LB), wherein the Hon ble Tribunal held as under:- Para 9. In view of what we have observed above, we answe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
