1999 (10) TMI 507

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....No. 49/86, dated 10-2-1986. He, therefore, set aside the orders on demand of duty but modified the orders in regard to the imposition of penalty". Being aggrieved by this order, Revenue has filed the captioned two appeals. As the two appeals pertained to different periods on the same issue, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are manufacturer of footwear falling under Chapter 64 of CETA'85. On a visit to the factory premises of the appellant on 25-8-1993, Central Excise Officers found that Bata Brand Footwear were being manufactured by the appellants. The officers also noted that one electrically operated Butting machine and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bruary, 1994. The appellants in reply to the SCN and in their written/oral submissions stated that though the officers found one grinding machine run by electricity, one compressor run by electricity, one footrest attached in 0.25 HP motor run by electricity and two stitching machines packed in sealed condition kept in the basement of the premises of the appellant but they did not find the same being used in the manufacture of Bata Brand of shoes; that the Panchnama drawn on the spot also did not say so; that the photographs of machines taken on the spot also did not indicate that the machines were being used for the manufacture of shoes; that various statements given by Shri Pippal, Proprietor of the firm did not suggest that the shoes in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of power was found installed in the premises of the appellant; that shoes were also found in the premises of the appellant which were not accounted for. He submitted that since machinery meant for production of shoes operated with the aid of power was installed in the premises of the appellant, therefore, Dy. Commissioner who adjudicated the case confirmed the demand as well as imposed the penalty. He reiterated the findings of the Dy. Commissioner in the adjudication order. 5. Shri H.K. Pippal, Proprietor of the respondent firm submits that the respondents were exporting their product; that the demand for shoes manufactured by the appellants got reduced and therefore, the entire machinery was kept in the basement of the factory....