9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1096X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. AR Shri S. Govindarajan supported the grounds of appeal. He submitted that the show cause notice was issued after noting discrepancies in the figures shown in the Profit & Loss account and ERI returns. The respondent was engaged in trading of goods also. When they were asked to produce evidence, the respondent produced a worksheet showing the break-up of the invoices in respect of traded goods and manufactured goods for the years 2007 - 08, 2008 - 09 and 2009 - 10. The respondents had purchased the traded goods from M/s. Sam Turbo Industries Ltd. Coimbatore and sold to various Thermal Power Stations. However, the total value of both the traded goods and the manufactured goods as shown in the worksheet was found to be less than the value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal stated is entirely different from that of the argument put forward by the ld. AR. In the grounds of appeal, the only ground stated is that the Commissioner has not given any finding for setting aside the demand on the ground of limitation. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has not dropped the demand of Rs. 34,94,737/- on the ground of limitation. In fact, in paragraphs 15 and16 of the impugned order, the Commissioner has categorically held that although the respondents are doing some modifications on the goods received into the factory, there is no new product emerging and therefore the activity does not amount to manufacture. The Commissioner has made proper discussion as well as given correct finding to support the dropping of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceived and the goods sold are one and the same and there 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. In that case, 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 br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
