2005 (6) TMI 310

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Appellant. Shri R.N. Vishwanath, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. -  There are two appeals on the same issue. M/s. Madanapalli Spinning Mills Ltd:, the first appellant, has appealed against OIO No. 07/2003, dated 6-3-2003 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirupati. 2. Revenue has filed an appeal against OIA No. 05/2004 dated 9-1-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ous periods. Interest on the duty was also demanded. Equal penalty was imposed under Rule 173Q of the C.E. Rules, 1944. For an earlier period, the Additional Commissioner, Guntur, passed an order on 25-7-2002 confirming a demand of duty of Rs. 7,12,381/- under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Mandatory penalty equal to the duty was imposed under Section 11AC. Interest was al....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aluation provisions, introduced w.e.f. 1-7-2000, there is no departure from the principal laid down by the Apex Court in the Ujagar Prints case. There is no evidence to show that the dealings between the appellants and the suppliers of raw materials are not at arm's length. 4. Shri C.R. Pandit, the learned Advocate appeared for the appellants and Shri R.N. Vishwanath, the learned SDR for t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssioner. 7. We have gone through the rival contentions. The same issue has been dealt with by the Commissioner, Tirupati and the Commissioner (Appeals), Guntur. After going through both the orders, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals), Guntur has correctly understood the facts and applied the law. It is very clear that the appellants were doing only job work. There is no evidence to sho....