TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/2013/2011-ST[SM] - A/52661/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 31-3-2017 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Mr. M.R. Sharma, AR for the Appellant Ms. Seema Jain, (Advocate) for the Respondent Per S.K. Mohanty: Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 18.05.2011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in manufacturing and selling of electrical items namely, Electrical Light Fitting, Chokes (electronic Copper), Geysers, Electric Fans etc. bearing Jilco brand. An intelligence was gathered that the appellant was also issuing invoices for removal of item namely, Retrofit Assembly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing for the appellant submits that since the appellant had purchased Retrofit Assemblies for the purpose of trading, there was no occasion to manufacture the same by itself. She further submits that the suppliers of the disputed goods have admitted that during the period 2006-07, they have sold the said goods to the appellant, the fact of which has also been accepted by the Department. She also submits that the disputed goods were supplied to the appellant by M/s. Link Lite, Jain Trading Co, Shashi Enterprises and others, which were sold by the appellant after testing and affixing the brand name to the Government Departments on DGS D Rate contract basis. She also submits that no evidence were produced by the Department that 310 PCB Chokes f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d upon until and unless subjected to the test or cross examination. d. The Department has not placed on record any evidence of clandestine procurement of raw material, excess consumption of power and other consumable in factory for manufacture of such large quantities of goods to show that goods sold by appellant under trading account were in fact manufactured by them. 9. On perusal of the above findings of ld. Commissioner (Appeals), it reveals that said observations were made by the appellate authority based on analysis of the documentary evidences available before him. Further I find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on various authoritative decisions rendered by the judicial forums to hold that the charges leveled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
