TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 946X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpugned goods. We therefore do not find any ground to interfere with the demand. Demand of duty confirmed - However, penalty imposed under Rule 25 is unwarranted and is set aside. Appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. E/508/2012 - Final Order No. 42244 / 2018 - Dated:- 2-8-2018 - Hon ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri J. Shankar Raman, Advocate for the Appellant Shri L. Nanda Kumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The appellants are registered with the Central Excise department for the manufacture of Tea Processing Machinery. They were availing the facility of CENVAT credit on inputs and cleared the goods for home consumption o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally extended by the Government. The said exemption was not extended for the interregnum period from 1.5.2009 to 26.2.2010. The authorities below have denied the exemption contending that it is specifically provided in the notification that the exemption shall not apply to goods cleared before 27.2.2010 and after 31.3.2011. The ld. counsel submitted that the appellant had in fact not manufactured the impugned goods during the disputed period in their factory. The impugned goods namely CTC machines were manufactured by M/s. T I Global Ltd. The appellants had purchased the same from them and sold to their customers by merely adding mandel assembly and segments. Copies of the purchase invoices were produced by the appellant. However, the autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... econd sales. In para 16 of the impugned order, the adjudicating authority has considered that plea of the appellant. After perusal of the invoice, it is stated by him that there is no mention that these machines are second sales and bought out items. The ld. counsel has produced copies of the invoices before us. We have also perused the same. In all such invoices, it is seen stated that those goods are complete in all respects as per the standard, design and specifications of the appellant. On perusal of the invoices, we do not find any material supporting the contention put forward by the appellant that these are bought-out items and not manufactured by the appellant in their factory. We also do consider that after such a long lapse of tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
