2011 (3) TMI 262

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and related works to various customers, such as military, railways, and airports etc. were registered with the Central Excise department at Plot No.25, Sector 4, Faridabad. In February, 2006, the appellants got registered in their own name at another address at Plot No.49, Sector 6, Faridabad showing their head office at Plot No.25, Sector 4, Faridabad. In the month of June to 2006 to July, 2006, the appellants procured inputs against duty paid invoices on which the address of their head office was mentioned and the said goods have been received in their factory at new address of their factory through endorsement of head office to the factory address. On verification by the Range Superintendent of Central Excise, it was alleged the same is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....LT 405 (Tri.-Kolkata)   (8) SWIL Ltd. vs.CCE, Calcutta-IV 2001 (138) ELT 216 (Tri.-Kolkata)   (9) CCE, Trichy vs.Sree Uma Pasrameswari Mills Ltd. -2001 (136) ELT 910 (Tri.-Chennai)   (10) CCE, Vapi vs. ITW India Ltd. -2010 (17) STR 587 (Tri.-Ahmd.)   (11) Merloni Termo Sanitari India Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune-I -2009 (233) ELT 222 (Tri.-Mumbai)   (12) Gautam Weaving Mills vs. CCE, Belapur 2008 (230) ELT 147 (Tri.-Mumbai)   4. On the other hand, learned SDR submitted that under new rule no endorsement is allowed and this fact has been suppressed by the appellants from the department, it came in the knowledge of the department when the Range Superintendent asked for verification of the invoices. He sub....