2005 (11) TMI 409

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arni, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Moheb Ali M., Member (T)]. -  Revenue is aggrieved by the order of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who held that the demand is time barred. 2. The respondent manufactures cables. He removed goods said to be aluminium wire rods, without payment of duty, under Rule 57(3) of the Central Excise Rules to another person for conversio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... payment of duty. This amounted to suppression (clearing goods under a wrong description). The respondent pleaded before the Commissioner that he correctly described the goods as remnants of aluminium rods as they emerged as rods only during the process of manufacturing aluminium cables/wires. The Commissioner did not accept the contention and held that the goods cleared without payment of duty are .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntends that he declared the goods as remnants of aluminium rods because they were indeed remnants arising out of the process of manufacture. We agree with the Commissioner's contention that there was no suppression of facts on the part of the respondent. In any case the whole exercise would have been revenue neutral had he paid duty on the goods, this is because the respondent is receiving back th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X