TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (6) TMI 367
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nagar, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. - The appellant is a manufacturer of parts of steam turbine, electric motors, generators etc. Under the impugned order, differential duty demands of about Rs. 11 lakhs was confirmed. The above demand is on two grounds. One, that the appellant manufactured 'fin tubes' and 'bend tubes' in the factory and used them for repair o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant time and repair work was undertaken with the permission of excise. It has further been pointed out that the work order relating to repair work was also being filed along with the request for permission. The ld. Counsel emphasized that since the department had allowed permission to undertake the repair work after being aware of the work orders, it should be accepted that full facts about the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the absence of such information, the Revenue authorities had no means of knowing that the manufacture was being carried out by the assessee who was working under self-removal procedure. The ld. SDR has also, in this connection, relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise and Others [1987 (27) E.L.T. 40 (AP)] and the judgment of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....verted. In these facts and circumstances, the appellant's contention that this is not a case involving suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty and the Revenue authorities are not entitled to raise the demand during the extended period merits acceptance. 5. The second demand is on the ground that raw materials have not been accounted properly. The ld. Counsel has taken us th....