9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ieved by which the Revenue has come up in appeal. In the Cross Objection the contentions raised by the assessee were not accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The Adjudicating Authority had held that the appellants were carrying on the activity of manufacturing cooling towers under the garb of trading/assembling activities since 1993 without declaring/obtaining proper registration and thus clandestinely manufactured and cleared excisable goods by suppression of facts. In the Order-in-Original it was held that the assessee had contravened the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rules made thereunder with an intent to evade payment of central excise duty amounting to Rs. 3,52,720/- on the value of cooling towers manufactured dur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 is also unjustified. 4. Pursuant to direction given by the Commissioner (Appeals) the assessee filed a chart showing invoice/bill-wise details of the goods sold by them and contended that the value of sales of trading goods cannot be added to the assessable value. Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that it is not proper to include the value of the traded goods in the value of clearances of the goods manufactured. Commissioner (Appeals) further granted abatement on account of the expenditure incurred for erection/installation/ commissioning of cooling towers. Thus the demand of duty for the year 1996-97 was reduced to Rs. 36,565/- and for the year 1997-98 to Rs. 40,473/-. The penalty of Rs. 5 Lakhs impose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r exemption invoice value is not the cum-duty price for the purpose of subsequent demand of duty by the Department. 7. We find no merit in the contentions raised by the Revenue in this appeal. Commissioner (Appeals) was fully justified in applying the ratio of M/s. Thermax Ltd. - 1998 (99) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) in the facts of the case. The assessee had placed sufficient material before the Commissioner (Appeals) to come to such a conclusion. We therefore dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. 8. As far as the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is concerned, we find merit in the contention that there was no justification for confirming the confiscation of raw materials and imposition of redemption fine. On going through the Panchnama i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
