9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 845X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdware Fittings of electrical transmission line falling under Chapter Sub-heading No.7326.90. The appellant did not obtain Central Excise Registration even after crossing the exemption limit of Rs. 1.00 Crore as prescribed under Notification No.8/2003 dt. 01.03.2003. The period involved is April, 2005 to March, 2006. The Departmental allegation is that during the said period, the appellant has cleared excisable goods amounting to Rs. 2,30,65,776/-. The show-cause notice was issued, which was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, resulting in confirmation of demand of Rs. 21,32,334/- along with interest and imposition of penalty of the equivalent amount upon the appellant under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sides and perused the records. 6. We find that the issue to be decided is whether the appellant had crossed the SSI limit under Notification No.8/2003 dt. 01.03.2003 and had willfully suppressed production and clearance to evade payment of duty. The appellant had a contract with M/s Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited (M/s AVVNL) and were supplying excisable goods cleared from their factory with the embossed Trade Mark REW . The goods were tailor made to the specification of the buyer and were cleared from the premises of the appellant only after inspection by the Inspector/Officer of M/s AVVNL. M/s AVVNL was sole buyer of the appellant. The seized records revealed that the appellant during the impugned period, had cleared the excisable go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant as a manufacturer. M/s AVVNL had also made an inspection and were satisfied that the appellant had proper infrastructure and capacity to manufacture the said electrical items. It was also a pre-condition that the supplied electrical hardware fittings should be marked with the manufacturer brand/trade name of REW . The ld.Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly observed that since the Department had established the prima-facie case on the basis of seized private records and investigation carried out with the buyers and the statement of the sole proprietor, the onus was on the appellant to show the substantive proof of trading in the form of documents mentioned above that the appellant failed to discharge its burden. 9. From ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
