2013 (7) TMI 534

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. the Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant M/s. Sukalp Agencies, Lucknow is engaged in the manufacturing of D. G. Sets. On 30.07.2002, a team of Central Excise Officers visited the factory premises, where various discrepancies in the stocks and records were found. So, various additions/penalties were made, which were partly upheld by the Tribunal. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal. With this background, Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the appeal, entire judgment has been challenged but he will confine his argument to the forth allegations mentioned in the impugned order, which relates to the duty demand of Rs.19,58,726/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d counsel further submits that as per C.P.W.D. Guidelines, 75% on total costs is presumed to be manufacturing cost; and 25% cost is presumed as installation and testing charges. So, the Tribunal has wrongly included the installation and testing charges in the total value as both the activities are exempted from the clutches of the Tax. Lastly, he made a request to set aside/modify the impugned order. On the other hand, Sri Rajesh Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the department has relied on the impugned order. He submits that no request was made at any stage for getting the papers from the appellant. He admits that appellant is entitled to get the copies of the seized documents as per rules. He further submits that the appellant is the d....