TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (9) TMI 318
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Negi, SDR, for the Appellant. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. - Heard the learned S.D.R., as none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice. From the records, it is found that on the last date of hearing also none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice. Respondents filed cross-objections. In these circumstances, the appeal is taken up in the absenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not admissible. In fact, the goods were manufactured by the other unit M/s. Kay Iron Works which was availing the benefit of SSI exemption and were cleared on the invoices of the respondents just to keep the clearance of M/s. Kay Iron Works within the limits of SSI exemption and utilize the credit wrongly taken. 4. We find that the adjudicating authority, in the impugned order, gave a fin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fication of the plant and machinery opined that in the premises of Eagle Engineering Works (respondents), there was no sufficient man and machinery and power supply to manufacture the goods shown as cleared under the invoices of the respondents. The contention of the Revenue is that as the goods were not manufactured by M/s. Eagle Engineering Works (respondents), and therefore, they are not entitl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....neer also to the effect that the respondents had no machinery in their premises which is capable of manufacturing sugar mill machinery and parts thereof which were shown to have been cleared under the invoices of the respondents. The respondents also admitted during the investigation that the goods were manufactured at the premises of M/s. Kay Iron Works. We find that M/s. Kay Iron Works was worki....