TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1096X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is no change in CETH or description of the goods. The Commissioner has therefore categorically held that the activity if any of modifying the goods does not amount to manufacture. It is for the department to show as to what are the inputs used for doing such modification and what is the activity actually involved for doing the modifications. The activity cannot be held to be manufacture on a mere presumption that there is an increase in the price value. Whenever there was no increase in the price, it is taken by the department to be traded goods. Thus, the allegation of manufacture is on mere assumption of increase in the value of goods sold. There is actually nothing brought forth in the show cause notice to show that the activity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s found to be less than the value as shown in the profit and loss accounts for each of the three financial years. The difference was not explained by the respondent. It was noted that they had availed CENVAT credit of the excise duty paid on purchased goods immediately on receipt of the goods in the factory. While selling the goods, the sales invoices showed that additional value was added to the goods sold and the goods were cleared on payment of excise duty. However, on reconciling the sales invoices along with ER1 returns, it was found that the sales invoices in some cases showed higher amount whereas in some cases it did not show any difference to as the value of the goods when purchased from outside. The ld. AR argued that when the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rect finding to support the dropping of demand for ₹ 34,94,737/-. It is also submitted by him that the respondents had filed appeal against the confirmation of demand of ₹ 23,14,649/-. The said appeal was dismissed vide Final Order No. 40455/2015 dated 23.4.2015 for failure to comply with the predeposit. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The department is aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner who dropped part of the demand of ₹ 34,94,737/-. Though the ld. AR has put forward the argument that the dropping of said demand is not correct when the activity of doing modifications on the products purchased having been admitted by the respondent, there is actually no such ground raised in the appeal filed before this Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
