Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the demand of duty, interest and penalties alleging that the appellants had not manufactured the goods was sustainable, and whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the area-based exemption and consequential refund under Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002.
Analysis: The allegations rested mainly on the investigation conducted at Meerut and the assumption that the raw material suppliers were non-existent. The record showed, however, that movements of raw material and finished goods were reflected at the toll barriers, departmental officers had visited the units and verified purchases and plant machinery, and no adverse material was brought against the appellants at their end. The finding that no manufacture took place was therefore based only on presumption and not on concrete evidence. In the absence of corroborative evidence to displace the contemporaneous material showing manufacture and clearance, the charge that the appellants were not manufacturing units could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The appellants were held to be manufacturing units eligible for the exemption, and the demand of duty on the alleged erroneous refund, along with the penalties, was unsustainable.