9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cating Authority). 2. An application under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 for the waiver of pre-deposit of the amount under the impugned order has also been filed by the appellant. 3. Fact of the case is that the appellant is a manufacturer of parts and accessories of Motor vehicles falling under Chapter 87 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985. It is also doing the job work of M/s. Gajara Gears Ltd., Dewas for manufacture of similar product. They are also availing Modvat facilities under Rule 57A and 57Q. 4. Personal hearing in the case was fixed on 20-5-1998 which was attended by Shri Ravi Holani, Advocate, and S.S. Sisodia, Works Manager. It was submitted by them that the department's demand is based on assumption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch were put to use for manufacture of Tata 2nd speed gear 1210, though there was a production of this item during this period as was evident from RG 1 register. In the course of further investigation statement of Works Manager was recorded. He stated that the item "Tata 2nd speed gear 1210" takes average 90 days for its production. But the first entry in RG 1 for this product was made in their RG 1 register after 9 months. On this basis the SCN was issued to the appellant that the appellant had not used the two machines, credits of which were taken under Rule 57Q for the manufacture of their final product but the same were used for manufacture of exempted items on job work basis under Notification No. 214/86 and which is against the provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Notification No. 214/86 are exempted goods. 7. The production of final product cleared on payment of duty is admittedly recorded in RG 1 register during the relevant period. The adjudicating authority has taken into consideration a limited period of 11-1-1997 and 15-2-1997 which cannot be made applicable for its findings for the entire period. 8. The appellants should also produce concrete evidence to establish and satisfy the adjudicating officer that the machine has not been used exclusively for the manufacture of final goods exempted from payment of duty. He has also not been able to establish his point of view conclusively and beyond the scope of any doubt. The case is, therefore, remanded to the original authority for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
