9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly assembling the kit whereas they are putting various pars in a packing in loose condition and that parts duly packed in the pouch sold in the market. The activity of repacking from bulk quantity to retail small packing does not amount to manufacture. Therefore, the activity of packing of various parts into small retail packing and sale thereof to various customers does not fall under the purview of manufacture. Accordingly, no demand can be confirmed - Consequently penalty is also set aside. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - E/2769/06-MUM - A/86059/17/EB - Dated:- 27-2-2017 - Mr.Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri.S B Awate, Consultant for appellant Shri.V.K. Shastri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 3.69 lakhs totaling ₹ 5,14,457/- was confirmed and also upheld the corresponding penalty of ₹ 5,14,457/-. Therefore, the appellant is before us. 2. Shri S.B. Awate, learned Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that as regards the demand of Cenvat credit of ₹ 1,44,747/- the appellants have admitted the same and paid the amount vide TR-6 challan dated 08/09/2006. Accordingly, they do not contest the confirmation of duty demand of ₹ 1,44,747/-. As regards the confirmation of duty of ₹ 3,69,710/-, he submits that demand was confirmed on the ground that the appellants have assembled the kit of bought out items and duly packed and sold to various customers. Therefore, the activities is amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 5. We find that as regards the demands of ₹ 1,44,747/-, the appellants have already paid the amount and not contesting the same. As regards the penalty corresponding to the said amount, we find that the appellant has inadvertently passed on the credit on the invoices of second stage dealer. There is no malafide intention. We are of the view that in the given facts of this issue, the penalty under Section 11AC should not be imposed. We therefore, set aside the penalty imposed under Section 11AC corresponding to the demand of ₹ 1,44,747/-. As regards he demand of ₹ 3.69 lakhs confirmed by the lower authorities on the ground that the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
