9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 849X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e engaged in trading of rectifiers of SMPS. The relevant invoices against which the SMPS were purchased by the appellant from UTL are enclosed with the paper book. The Revenue could not produce any evidence that supply of additional items along with SMPS purchased from UTL resulted into emergence of a new manufactured product and the activity of assembly carried out by them amounts to manufacture. Neither investigation initiated nor statements have been recorded from the appellant about the activity of assembling, if any, of the additional items supplied with SMPS as observed in the impugned order. There are no merit in the impugned order - Consequently, the same is set aside and appeal is allowed. - HON'BLE DR. D. M. MISRA , MEMBER ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the learned Commissioner(Appeals) who in turn rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. At the outset, the learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that during the relevant period December 2004 to February 2005, the appellant was registered as a dealer and not as a manufacturer. He has submitted that the SMPS manufactured by M/s. United Telecoms Ltd. (UTL, for short) and supplied the said goods to the appellant on payment of duty. In support, relevant purchase invoices were enclosed with the appeal paper book. In the said invoices, appropriate duty has been discharged on the SMPS received by the appellant. The duty demand was confirmed along with penalty and interest by the original authority without proper scrutin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... long with SMPS, certain addendums had been supplied to the customers. The appellant s claim is that the said SMPS have been procured from UTL during the said period, which suffered excise duty and since the appellants were trading on the items, cleared the same to their customers without payment of duty. It is their contention that mere supply of certain addendums along with the SMPS cannot be considered that a new product has been manufactured in their factory premises on the presumption that subsequently the appellant had undertaken activity of manufacturing of SMPS in their premises w.e.f. July 2005. We find that the objection has been raised by the audit during the course of scrutiny of their records subsequent to obtaining their regist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
