2016 (8) TMI 788
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sh. Ravinder Singh, Consultant for the appellant Shri R. K. Majhi, DR for the respondent ORDER The present appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 26.05.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi. The appellant is a manufacturer of photocopier parts, television parts, telephony apparatus etc. classifiable under chapter 84 and 85. The appellant also ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... authority was affirmed by the appellate authority and consequently appeal has been filed before the Tribunal. 2. The appellant in appeal has submitted that the moulds in question were transferred to their own unit in Noida since the original unit was closed and the entire manufacture with capital goods were transferred to their Noida unit. However, the moulds have not been transfer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... manufactures moulds and used the same within their factory for manufacture of moulded parts and are eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995. This cannot be subjected to duty only on the ground that invoices have been raised and the payment for the same has been recovered. The duty demand has arisen for the reason that the moulds have been transferre....
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
TaxTMI