1997 (12) TMI 204

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nder the guise of CRGO Rolls and Torridel Core. 3. Appeal No. E/1254/88-B is filed by M/s. S.S. Enterprises against the order-in-original vide which demand of duty of Rs. 1,33,585.06 was confirmed and penalty of Rs. One lakh was imposed. Appeal No. E/1255/88-B2 was filed by S.K. Electronic against the impugned order vide which demand of duty of Rs. 1,35,442.10 was confirmed and penalty of Rs. One lakh was imposed. Appeal No. E/887/88-B1 was filed by Bagadia Brothers against the impugned order vide which demand of duty of Rs. 2,27,636.28 was confirmed and penalty of Rs. One lakh was imposed. Appeal No. 1256/88-B was filed by M/s. J.J. Enterprise against the impugned order vide which demand of duty of Rs. 65,493.19 was confirmed and p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... importing such sheet. 7. He submits that the actual quantity of laminations manufactured by the appellant shown in the statutory record. The CRGO rolls and CRNGO rolls were supplied as such by silitting to various customs, which did not amount to manufacture. 8. He submits that the finding of the Collector that goods cleared under invoices containing the description of CRGO coils were nothing but lamination, is not based on any evidence. He therefore prays that appeals be allowed. 9. Shri M. Jayaraman appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that M/s. Indcoil Manufacturing Co., Bombay was customer of all the appellants. Shri R.D'Cruz, M.D. of M/s. Indicoil Manufacturing Co. in his statement stated that they were p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....plied to customers and has been not accounted for, for the purpose of turn over. In some cases the customers might have used the CRGO rolls as laminations for this purpose and in some cases it might have been lamination. Similar statement was made by Smt. Shobana S. Bagadia Partner of M/s. S.S. Enterprises. 14. Shri Sunil S. Mehta Proprietor of Bagadia Brothers in his statement dated 6-4-1987 admitted that he have supplied to customers only lamination and not CRGO rolls as mentioned in invoice. 15. Smt. Meena Bagadia proprietress of J.J. Enterprises in the statement admitted that by mistake they have not taken into account the turn over in respect of CRGO rolls and she admitted the liability duty of Rs. 56,842.65. 16.&ems....