TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d demanded duty without any factual basis - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/00658/2007 - Final Order No. 41932/2017 - Dated:- 28-8-2017 - Smt. Sulekha Beevi CS, Member (Judicial) and Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri M. Karthikeyan, Adv. For the Respondent Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) ORDER The brief facts of the case are that appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium Alloy Ingots, Aluminium Extrusions etc., falling under Chapter 76 of Central Excise Tariff. Preventive Officers of the Central Excise department visited the appellant's Unit on 16.03.2005 and observed that - (a) the appellant is undertaking job work for vari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the appeal in respect of the issue covered under (b) and reduced the penalty from ₹ 13,750/- to ₹ 3,500/- in respect of the issue covered under (c). Aggrieved by the above Order-in-Appeal, the appellant is now before this Tribunal in respect of demand of duty with interest for the issue mentioned in (b) above and the penalties imposed. 2. On behalf of appellant, the learned counsel for appellant Shri M. Karthikeyan submitted that the demand of duty has been proposed on the ground that the raw material suppliers like M/s. Intech Enterprises and M/s. Kumar Enterprises are traders and not manufacturers and hence, the clearance of job-worked goods without payment of duty under challans in terms of Notification No.214/86-CE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Palakad is a manufacturer of telephone instruments and M/s. Industrial Metal Works is a manufacturer/refining Unit. In the absence of any verification from such customers and also in the absence of any allegation or proposal in respect of such customers in the impugned show-cause notice, both the lower authorities has upheld the demand of duty with interest on the supplies made to such customers, which is not legally sustainable at all. 2.2 In the show-cause notice, it is stated that the appellant had admitted in their letter, dated 16.03.2005 that the above two customers, namely, M/s. Intech Enterprises and M/s. Kumar Enterprises are only traders and not manufacturers. On perusal of the said letter it could be seen that the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
