TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was purchased on the last date of the financial year and as such, was manipulated. However, we find that the above observations of the adjudicating authority are in the realm of assumptions and presumptions and not based upon any evidence so as to hold contrary to the appellants claim. Revenue has not bothered to investigate at the end of the seller of the compressor so as to find out the fact as to whether the compressor was actually sold on the said date or not. As regards the manufacture of the Glass Tubes with effect from 01.04.2007 with the help of the compressor learned Advocate agrees that the same would be dutiable inasmuch as the same were being used captively for the manufacture of the exempted final products - For verificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charge their duty liability inasmuch as the same are being captively used for production of an exempted product. 3. After further investigation, proceedings were initiated against the appellant by way of issuance of show cause notice dated 07.07.2008 raising demand of duty in respect of Glass Tubes for the period April, 2003 to July, 2007 by alleging that the appellant had used compressor for blowing of the Glass Tubes instead of their claim that the same have been produced by Mouth Blowing process, and by invoking the extended period of limitation. 4. It is seen that during the adjudication proceedings, the appellant took a categorical stand that the compressor in question was purchased by them only on 31.03.2007 and as such the prod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nancial year, it seems that the same was manipulated bill. Accordingly, he rejected the above stand of the appellant and affirmed the duty to the extent of ₹ 54,36,376/- along with imposition of penalties on both the appellants. 6. We have heard the learned Advocate Shri Rajesh Chhibber appearing for appellants and Learned A.R. Shri Mohammad Altaf appearing for Revenue. 7. On going through the impugned order, we find that there is enough evidence on record to establish that prior to the date of purchase of the compressor, the Mouth Blowing process was being used by the assessee for conversion of glass into Glass Tubes. Statement of Shri Praveen Sharma, an employee of the appellant, recorded on 08.08.2007 is to the effect that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vations of the adjudicating authority are in the realm of assumptions and presumptions and not based upon any evidence so as to hold contrary to the appellants claim. Revenue has not bothered to investigate at the end of the seller of the compressor so as to find out the fact as to whether the compressor was actually sold on the said date or not. We also note that there is no restriction on sale purchase activities on the last date of financial year. No investigation was made by revenue, in which case the bill produced by the appellant has to be accepted as the correct reflection of facts. 8. In view of the forgoing, we agree with the appellants that the manufacturing process in their unit have been done with the help of the compressor o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
