TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isited the factory and saw the manufacturing activity before placing the order to the appellant. The appellant has supplied the goods to NCCF as a manufacturer, and not as a trader. Payment was received through pay cheques and bills were raised as a manufacturer - It is seen from the NCCF record, that the appellant had manufacturing facilities during the relevant time and they had supplied the impugned goods, Ld. DR had already submitted that in due course the factory was dismantled and machinery loss sold. At the relevant time, the appellant was engaged in manufacturing of the impugned goods which were supplied to the NCCF as a manufacturer - demand upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/1692/2011-EX[DB] - A/55199/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- under section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Equal penalty was also demanded. Being aggrieved with the order appellant has filed the present appeal. 3. It may be mentioned that this is a time bound case as per the direction of the Hon ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir dated 28.11.2016 where a direction was issued to dispose of the appeal within a period of three months. 4. On previous date i.e. 09.06.2017 Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Ld. Advocate for the appellant submitted that in the instant case CBI has lodged an FIR on 08.06.2009 in Jammu. He made a request that time may be granted to obtain the outcome of the FIR. 5. Today, when the matter was called, Shri Sudhir Malhotra, submitted that he is unable to obtain th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s for the impugned goods, so the order was placed with the appellant. He further pointed out that machinery needed is of a type which can be easily dismantled and sold. The fact that the appellants were not seen to be having required machinery at the time of investigation does not mean that they did not have such machinery earlier. The plea changed by the appellant is nothing but just to escape the excise duty. In the criminal proceedings, which were initiated by the CBI they might have taken some other stand. But the present case, has no impact on the criminal proceedings being tax matter. 8. We have heard both the sides and gone through the material available on record. 9. After perusal of the record, it appears that the goods were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
