TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1356
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri. Sanjay Dvivedi, Advocate with Shri. Raymond Gorge, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. M. Melvin, Superintendent (A.R.) for the Respondent Order The fact of the case is that appellant M/s. Pankti Plastic Industries are engaged in the manufactured of excisable goods viz. Plastic bottle, E cap and nozzle etc falling under Chapter 39 of Central Excise Tariff Act. On investigation by the departme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made preliminary submission that the clearances made by other three firms were not manufactured by M/s. Pankti but goods were manufactured by job work basis from various job worker, therefore duty liability on such goods cannot be made from the M/s. Pankti. He submits that this defence can be substantiated on the basis of the documents withdrawn by the investigation agency from their factory unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore there is no violation of principle of natural justice and both the lower authorities have rightly confirmed the demand. 5. On careful consideration of submissions made by both sides and after perusal of records, I find that though the case was made out on the basis of panchanama and statement of various persons but for making the defence by the appellant they are seeking to release the docu....