9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resentative for the Respondent ORDER ASHOK JINDAL 1. The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein demand has been confirmed against the appellant by taking the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 of the Central Excise. The facts of the case are that initially the appellant was manufacturer of Toolings which have been captively used for manufacture of final product which has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat for the earlier period appellant were manufacturer of tooling and raising invoice to the principal buyer through commercial invoices and favour the invoice of Notification No. 65/95 for that a dispute rise and has been settled in their favour in Castex Technologies Ltd. v CCE, Alwar 2017 (12) TMI 546-CESTAT, New Delhi. The condition of the learned counsel for the impugned period is that they h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugned case which shows that Adjudicating Authority has not applied their mind while passing order and only doing the job of cut and paste. These things are to be avoided and cannot be appreciated. In future if these type of activities are found in the adjudication order the same should be dealt with strictly by this Tribunal. We further take note of the fact that the learned Commissioner (Appeal) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
