TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1003X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments were relied upon by the adjudicating authority. Since this issue has not been considered at all by any of the lower authorities, the matter needs to be sent back on this aspect to the adjudicating authority on the issue whether the stentering process is amount to manufacture or otherwise - appeal allowed by way of remand. - APPEAL No. E/451, 627-629/2009-SM - A/11490-11493/2018 - Dated:- 25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proper duty paying documents and without discharging duty liability thereof. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand, interest and imposed penalty under section11AC. Penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs each was also imposed on Sh. Gyan Singh Sisodiya, Director of M/s Jindal Texofab Ltd., Shri Uma Shankar Agarwal, Propreitor of M/s Shreenath Ji Textiles, Shri Kailash Sanwarmal Jalan, attorney h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 9D of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Therefore, the adjudicating authority could not have used the statements as evidences for deciding the case. On the query from the bench, Ld. Counsel accepted that the submission was not made before either of the lower authorities. He further submits that as per the allegations of the Revenue, the appellant have carried out activity of stentering which alo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CCE vs SSM Processing Mill 2008 TIOL-1378 CESTAT- MAD 3. CCE v Coimbatore Pioneer Mills- 2008-TIOL- 700-CESTAT_MAD 4. CCE v Steel Strips Ltd- 1995 (77) ELT 248 (SC) 5. CCE v Goyal Gases (P) Ltd- 2000 (119) ELT 5 (SC) 6. Hindustan Ferodo Ltd v CCE- 1997 (89) ELT 16 (SC) 7. Sant Processors v CCE- 2015 (327) ELT 700 8. G-Tech Industries v UOI-2016 (339) ELT 209 (P H) 9. Flamingo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
