9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pted from duty of excise leviable thereon. The second ground is that declaration under Rule 57T was not filed within the stipulated time in respect of one of the machines. 2. The appellants contest the findings both on merits as well as on the ground of limitation. It has been pointed out that the machines were used for manufacture of castings and the castings were not exempted. Instead, they were sent without payment of duty for further manufacture as permitted under Rule 57F(3). The appellants contend that clearances without payment of duty under Rule 57F(3) is not a case of exemption from duty. A further contention of the appellants is that the machines in question had also been used for the manufacture of castings which they had clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Order dated 15-3-1996. It is the appellants' submission that the declaration was filed within the permissible time-limit of three months and this is borne out by the 'Goods Receipt Note' in the appellants' records. It is pointed out that the Goods Receipt Note indicated full details about the receipt of the machine in question. Therefore, it is contended that the mere fact that this machine is one of the machines against which production is reported on 18-11-95 cannot be the basis for holding that the machine had been received earlier than 29-11-1995. It is their submission that there is no evidence corroborating the production reports and the entry could as well be a case of error. The appellants have also pointed out that this Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The order is, therefore, clearly in error in holding that credit was not permissible in respect of the two machines on the ground of use in the production of exempted goods. On the question of delay in making the declaration under Rule 57G, it is seen that the appellants' declaration about the date of receipt of the machine (29-11-95) is supported by the Goods Receipt Note. That note gave full particulars including particulars of carrier etc. This Goods Receipt Note or its contents had not been proved to be false in the proceedings which culminated in the impugned order. The only evidence for holding the date of receipt to be prior to 29-11-95 is that production is mentioned against this machine prior to 29-11-95. Thus, there is conflicti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
