TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 399
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....26 of Central Excise Rules. 2. We have heard both sides duty represented by Shri Prabhat Kumar, ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri I. Baig and Shri S. Jain, ld. D.Rs for Revenue. 3. As per facts on record M/s A. Infrastructure Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of asbestos cement pressure pipes used for conveying drinking water falling under Chapter 68. Notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 exempts products of Chapter 68, if they contain fly ash not less than 25% by weight. As per the appellant, they were using the fly ash more than 25% in the said pipes manufactured by them and as such they were entitled to the benefit of the notification in question. Proper records showing receipt of fly ash from the factory of M/s Kota Sup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orded the statement of two of their Assistant Engineers, who deposed that as per the records maintained by them and as per their knowledge and information, M/s A. Infrastructure did not lift any fly ash from them. The said plea of the Revenue is rebutted by the ld. Advocate on the ground that such fly ash generated at the power plant is also dumped by the said power plant in the outside pond. They have entered into a contract with the transporters for lifting the said fly ash and transport the same to their factory. As such, he submits that the statements of two engineers are factually correct inasmuch as it was the transporters who were collecting the fly ash from their end and not the appellant directly. 6. It is further seen that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with effect from April 2005. They had produced weighment slips before Commissioner. 8. Ld. D.R. submits that the investigations were also conducted at the dharamkanta end and the owner of the same denied that the weighment slips produced for the period November 2005 to March 2006 belonged to his dharamkanta. Ld. DR submits that actually, the weighment slips retrieved from the computer maintained at dharmakanta revealed that the same belonged to some other third parties, whose statements were also recorded and who have accepted the said weighment slips. To counter the above stand of the Revenue, the contention of the ld. Advocate is that the Revenue itself has accepted the weighment slips for the period April 2005 to October 2005 and as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11. The contention of the DR is also that the factory of Kota is around 183 km. away from the appellants factory and Suratgarh is 725 kms. Away. He submits that fly ash is a costless item and the truck owners/transporters are charging the appellant only for the transportation cost. He submits that when two sources of acquisition of fly ash are at different locations and the difference of distance between them is around 500 kms., the cost of transportation should also vary, whereas the fact is that the appellant have entered into contract with the transporters to supply the fly ash from two different sources, at the same cost. He also submits that the investigation conducted by the Revenue revealed that payment to transporters was being mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot appeared in the records of Kota Thermal Power Plant, can be examined only at final disposal. Suffice it to say at this prima facie stage that there seems to ample evidence against the appellant indicating that the procurement of fly ash was not actually being done by them and only the records showing receipt of the same were being maintained. In such a scenario even the aspect of plea of limitation may not be, prima facie, available to the appellant, inasmuch as the entire case of Revenue is that records were being maintained only to show the receipt of consumption of fly ash, which has turned out to be false. 13. As we have already discussed that the appellant does not have a prima facie case, we deem it fit to put them to some terms....