TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specifically recorded that appellant had manipulated various purchase documents which were produced during personal hearing, to show that they have received the goods in retail packs. No satisfactory explanation is put forth by the appellant before us on this point except to state that there is nothing on record to show that there was manipulation - if the appellant is undertaking manipulation of documents to prove his case before the adjudicating authority, it has to be held that confirmation of demand so raised are correct. The adjudicating authority has recorded a factual finding that the appellant had received the activated carbons from the suppliers in retail packs only and he sold the same in the said retail packs only. This factua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the case of the department in the show cause notice that such activity would amount to manufacture as per chapter note no. 9 of chapter 38 and demanded, approximately ₹ 1.34 Crores and interest thereon and also sought to impose penalties. Appellant contested the show cause notice on merits and on limitation, stating that they had not converted from bulk packs to retail packs to get covered under mischief of chapter note no. 9 of chapter 38 and that extended period cannot be invoked. The adjudicating authority after following due process of law confirmed the demand to the tune of ₹ 35,93,990/-, dropping the proceedings in respect of other demands based upon the detailed submissions made before him. The adjudicating authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng. As regards the demands dropped by the adjudicating authority, it is submitted that the adjudicating authority has erred in only considering the submissions made by the appellant herein that there was no repacking but they were sold in retail. It is his submission that the said amount also needs to be confirmed. 5. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we find that the issue is in a limited scope as to whether Central Excise duty needs to be paid on the quantity of the goods which were cleared by the appellant and whether they have to be considered as manufactured products as per chapter note no.9 of chapter 38. In order to appreciate the entire issue, we reproduce the said chapter note no. 9 of chapter 38, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As regards the appeal filed by the Revenue, we find that the adjudicating authority has recorded a factual finding that the appellant had received the activated carbons from the suppliers in retail packs only and he sold the same in the said retail packs only. This factual finding for dropping the demands other than the amount confirmed is not effectively controverted by the Revenue in their appeal. In our view, in the absence of any evidence to show that there was packing or repacking from bulk packs to retail packs, the demands dropped by the adjudicating authority is correct. To that extent, we find that the appeal of the Revenue does not merit acceptance. 8. In view of the foregoing, appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected and the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
