9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1078X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed against the impugned order dated 17.08.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Department initiated show cause proceedings against the appellant alleging that it is engaged in the manufacture and clearances of excisable goods namely, electric fuses and other electric parts falling under heading 8536.90 and 8548.00 of the Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposed on Shri. Manoj Kumar Sharma, partner of the appellant company. On appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order has upheld the duty demand and imposition of penalty on the appellant company. However, the penalty imposed on Shri. Manoj Kumar Sharma was set aside. 3. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is not a manufacturer, engaged in manufac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd, the ld. DR appearing for the respondent reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. 5. Heard the ld. Counsel for both sides and perused the records. 6. On perusal of paragraph 3 at page 5 in the adjudication order, I find that in cross examination, Shri Debumukhiya inter-alia denied having any knowledge of the panchnama drawn by the Department. Further, Shri Mahesh Sharma, the Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilable records that the appellant was duly registered with the Sales Tax Department for resale of various goods mentioned in the registration certificate. Since upon proper analysis of the activities undertaken by the appellant, the jurisdictional Sale Tax authorities have issued the registration certificate to the appellant considering it as a trader, in absence of any tangible evidence produced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
