https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187651 Central excise duty on acoustic enclosures/canopies was examined on the factual question whether manufacture occurred at the Delhi unit before July 2000. The record of machinery purchases, electricity use, invoices and vendor/job-worker documents supported the view that the unit did not manufacture the goods before that date, and the Revenue failed to produce corroborative evidence; Note 6 of Section XVI was found inapplicable because the goods were not semi-finished or unfinished goods. The duty demand for the period before July 2000 was set aside, while duty with interest for July 2000 to September 2000 was sustained. The penalties on the main appellant and one officer were set aside, and the deceased officer's appeal abated. en-us Mon, 21 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Nov 2016 18:37:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187651 Central excise duty on acoustic enclosures/canopies was examined on the factual question whether manufacture occurred at the Delhi unit before July 2000. The record of machinery purchases, electricity use, invoices and vendor/job-worker documents supported the view that the unit did not manufacture the goods before that date, and the Revenue failed to produce corroborative evidence; Note 6 of Section XVI was found inapplicable because the goods were not semi-finished or unfinished goods. The duty demand for the period before July 2000 was set aside, while duty with interest for July 2000 to September 2000 was sustained. The penalties on the main appellant and one officer were set aside, and the deceased officer's appeal abated. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 21 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187651