9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concluded that it stands on a different footing then billet/bloom. Liability to make payment of central excise duty arose the moment excisable goods are manufactured, but the appellant did not make payment of the goods from May, 2012, therefore, the appellate Tribunal has rightly rejected the argument concerning angles, channel & joist. Presence of 994.080 MT of angles, channel & joist having not been disputed, non-acceptance of appellant's explanation does not raise any substantial question of law - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Taxc No. 42 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 17-7-2018 - Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra And Smt. Justice Vimla Singh Kapoor For the Petitioner : Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 Bloom/Billet (Rolling Mill) 3894.873 4053.910 (+) 159.037 3 Bloom/Billet (SMS) 944.481 1076.560 (+) 132.079 4. The appellant was issued show cause notice on 31-12-2012 on the ground that the goods were kept with intent to be cleared without payment of duty. The notice proposed for confiscation of seized goods and eventually, after providing opportunity of hearing to the appellant, the order-in-original was passed on 31-12-2003, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph. 5. Challenging the appellate order passed by the Tribunal Shri Ashish Shrivastava, lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to evade duty. 7. The appellate Tribunal has observed that there is nothing on record to support the appellant's argument that such goods were manufactured in trial run and did not meet the necessary specifications. Since the quantity of 994.080 MT was found to be considerable the appellate Tribunal concluded that it stands on a different footing then billet/bloom. Liability to make payment of central excise duty arose the moment excisable goods are manufactured, but the appellant did not make payment of the goods from May, 2012, therefore, in our considered opinion, the appellate Tribunal has rightly rejected the argument concerning angles, channel joist. 8. Presence of 994.080 MT of angles, channel joist having not been dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
