2006 (5) TMI 11

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....without the paying of any central excise duty. That clearance was also included in the monthly return of clearance of goods from the factory. 2. The appellant's unit was subsequently audited by Central Excise authorities. On 31-3 99, a Show-cause Notice was issued alleging that the appellant mis-declared the clearance of March, 1994 as repaired transformer; but actually it was a case of clearance of a manufactured transformer without payment of duty. The notice raised a duty demand of about Ks. 1.6 lakhs and also proposed imposition of penalty. The Notice also alleged that the duty evasion was by suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty, and for that reason, the notice issued beyond the normal period of one year was sustai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... lakhs ought to have been paid on the said re manufactured goods and the demand is rightly sustainable in law." 5. He also rejected the appellant's submission that there was no suppression of facts. What prevailed with the Joint Commissioner for such a finding was the fact that appellant did not make available the insurance claim or the survey report about the damaged transformer. 6. Aggrieved with, this order, the appellant moved an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). He also noted that it is seen that "in respect of dam aged transformer, substantial repairing has taken place and these are more of re placement in nature where repairing of damaged goods was not possible and the noticee was required to carry out replacement of the pa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....led by the record as well as the impugned orders do not support the contention that a new transformer had been manufactured by using salvage and other parts. Instead, it is a case where dam aged parts were replaced and original machine restored. This is clear from the finding of the lower authorities. I have already reproduced the observations of the original and the Appellate authorities. The Joint Commissioner's finding was that "it is seen that in respect of damaged transformer, substantial repairing has taken place and this is more of replacement in nature where repair of damaged goods was not possible and the noticee was required to carry out the replacement of the parts which almost tantamounted to manufacture". Thus, it is clear that....