9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 896X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the impugned order dated 13.4.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Service Tax, Bhopal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of forgings of steel, falling under Chapter Heading No.7326 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant avails Cenvat credit of Central Excise duty paid on inputs and capital goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eipt of the finished goods from the buyers. On the basis of such observations, the department initiated the show cause proceedings against the appellant, which culminated in the impugned order dated 1.2.2010, wherein differential Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,95,200/- along with interest was confirmed on the appellants. Besides, penalty of equivalent amount was imposed under Rule 25 of Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit taken by the appellant. 4. On the other hand, ld. DR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order and further submits that the appellant had not intimated the departmental officer as to the specific operations, which were carried out to the goods received from the buyers and subsequently, removed from the factory on payment of duty on transaction value. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old to the buyers, I am of the view that the matter can be remanded to the original authority for verification of the documents to be produced by the appellant. On perusal of the documents to be submitted by the appellant, if the original authority satisfies himself that the goods received from the buyers were not removed from the factory on as it is condition and the same were further refined or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
