2018 (10) TMI 1250

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt ORDER Per: C J Mathew The issue in this appeal of M/s Almech Enterprises against order-in-appeal no. SB (2)2/MV/2010 dated 5th January 2010 of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai is the leviability of duty on the transactions of the appellant in 2001-02 and 2002-03. The impugned order has upheld the order of the original authority for recovery of Rs. 14,80,984 under section 11 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... st appellate authority. He further informs us that, pursuant to audit, a show cause notice for recovery of Rs. 14,80,984 was issued to them on 2nd May 2006 which was decided against them and, thereafter, in the appellate proceedings now impugned before us, the demand was confirmed. 3. Learned Counsel also informs us that appeal of Revenue against the earlier order of the first appellate authority .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sion. Submitting that the activities of the appellant did not amount to manufacture, Learned Counsel seeks setting aside of the impugned order. 5. We have heard Learned Authorised Representative who places reliance on circulars of 2002 issued by Central Board of Excise & Customs as well as various decisions including that of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd v. Commissio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X