9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent ORDER Per: (Dr.) Satish Chandra The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the Order-in-Appeal No. 09/2011 dated 07.04.2011. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant during the period of Financial year 2003-04 was engaged in the manufacture of wire mesh, concertina wire, barbed wire, angle iron pickets, wire crates, etc. falling under Chapter 73 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was demanded on the total value of Rs. 5,52,61,532/- under section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Equal penalty was also demanded. Being aggrieved with the order appellant has filed the present appeal. 3. It may be mentioned that this is a time bound case as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir dated 28.11.2016 where a direction was issued to dispose o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s commission for billing. There was no machinery for the manufacture of the impugned goods. Same would have been found installed at the appellant's factory when the officers visited the factory on 30.11.2004. He also submitted that the appellant has only shown the transaction by submitting the bills. When there was no manufacturing of the goods then there is no question to pay the excise duty. 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeded is of a type which can be easily dismantled and sold. The fact that the appellants were not seen to be having required machinery at the time of investigation does not mean that they did not have such machinery earlier. The plea changed by the appellant is nothing but just to escape the excise duty. In the criminal proceedings, which were initiated by the CBI they might have taken some other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that in due course the factory was dismantled and machinery loss sold. 11. In the light of the above discussion and by considering facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that at the relevant time, the appellant was engaged in manufacturing of the impugned goods which were supplied to the NCCF as a manufacturer. After inspection, orders were received from NCCF by the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
