2001 (4) TMI 260

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  The appellants during the period from 1-10-1994 to 31-3-1995 made semi-finished moulds and dies on job work basis for the principal manufacturers - M/s. Lumax Industries Ltd., Gurgaon. During this period, they had cleared semi-finished moulds and dies valued at Rs. 5,08,838/- to M/s. Lumax Industries Ltd., Gurgaon under the challans prescribed unde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e., M/s. Lumax Industries Ltd., did not pay duty on the finished goods i.e., dies. He has accordingly, confirmed duty demand of Rs. 76,326/- on the appellants and further imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on them. 2. The appeal of the party filed against the above order of the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise did not succeed and the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi vide ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ise Controlling Authorities. In view of these facts, therefore, it prima facie appears that if such activity was not considered to be permissible under the provisions of this Rule, then first the permission for availing the facility under the Rule should have been withdrawn and the duty, if any, should have been demanded from the principal manufacturer i.e., M/s. Lumax Indus. In this view of the m....