TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not amount to manufacture - the activity performed by the appellants in respect of circular diffusers and jet diffusers do not amount to manufacture - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/586/2008-DB - Final Order No. 20755 / 2018 - Dated:- 29-5-2018 - Mr. S. S. Garg, Judicial Member And Mr. P. Anjani Kumar, Technical Member None For the Appellant Ms. Kavitha Podwal, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : P. Anjani Kumar M/s. Air Master Equipments India Pvt. Ltd., the appellants, are engaged in the manufacture of aluminium ventilation equipments falling under Chapter Subheading 7616. Headquarters Preventive Unit had visited the factory on 28.12.2006 and verified the records. It was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty to ₹ 20,000/- Hence, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 2. On an appeal made by the appellants, this Bench has stayed the recovery of the amounts confirmed vide Stay Order No.1044/2008 dated 21.10.2008. From the statement of facts and grounds of appeal, it appears that the appellants purchased whole of circular diffusers without powder coating. The circular diffusers needs to be powder coated with the colour desired by the customers. They have subcontracted the powder coating process. The learned Commissioner (A) has failed to note that the appellants have purchased the circular diffusers and jet diffusers from the market; they removed the removal cores which are sent for powder coating under the cover of delivery chall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shna Pipe Industries: 2004 (61) RLT 17 (Kar.-HC) (iv) Machino Montal (India) Ltd.: 2004 (168) ELT 466 (Tri.-LB) 3. This case was listed on various occasions before this Bench on 29.11.2016; 10.2.2017; 21.8.2017; 6.2.2018; and 13.2.2018. It seems that nobody had appeared. Despite of notice, even today none has appeared. 4. The Departmental Representative has reiterated the findings of Commissioner (A) and submitted that the case could not be decided due to the continued absence of counsel for the appellants. 5. The counsel for the appellant did not appear. We find that there is a very narrow scope for the view in this case. The amount involved is about ₹ 58,000/- and there are not many issues which could have been either ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
