TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1585
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it at Silwasa. The present dispute relates to the unit in New Delhi. The generator sets manufactured at Silwasa are cleared on payment of duty. Some customers requested for gensets to be covered with acousting enclosures, (canopy). The appellants did not have the facility to manufacture these canopies and hence they have either got it fabricated from job workers or purchased from the vendors. The department initiated action against the main appellant for non-payment of duty of canopy manufactured and cleared from their New Delhi unit. The original authority who adjudicated the case vide his order dated 29-9-2005 confirmed the demand of Rs. 43,58,722/- for the period from 1-4-1999 to 30-9-2000. He imposed equal penalty on the main appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at their New Delhi unit till July, 2000. Prior to that date these canopies were directly procured from the vendors as well as got fabricated through job worker. They have submitted invoice wise details for each one of these canopies with the details of manufacturer on other points. They are not liable to pay any duty on these canopies. (2) The canopies manufactured by job workers were complete in all respects. The delivery challan clearly indicates product as 'acoustic enclosures'. These job workers were availing SSI exemption. In some cases the job workers discharged duty as evidenced from invoices. The appellant are not liable to duty on the manufacturing activity undertaken by the job workers. In view of the size....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is only relevant to the period prior to July, 2000, we find that the appellants have strongly contested the payment on the grounds that they had no manufacturing facility prior to July, 2000 to make the impugned goods at Delhi. They have supported these argument with details of purchase of various machinery made in June, July, 2000 and also parten of electricity consumption pre/post-July, 2000. We find that there is no corroborative, cogent evidence to sustain the claim of department that the appellants have the manufacturing impugned goods at their Delhi unit even prior to July, 2000. The statement of the owner of the premises is of general nature and is not corroborated by any other evidence. 6. We find that the lower authorities ha....