2017 (11) TMI 1456

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri. H. M. Dixit, Asst. Comm. (AR), for respondent ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair 1. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 25, 38 & 69 of the CETA,1985. They cleared the goods, namely, "Acconex" falling under Chapter 38.24 in bulk packs on payment of Central Excise Duty under the cover of excise invoice to M/s. Abhijit Enterprises, Thane, for packi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... In the adjudication order, the demand of duty was confirmed and equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC was imposed. Being aggrieved by the order-in-original, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the appeal by upholding the order-in-original, therefore the appellants are before us. 2. Shri Prasad Paranjape, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appella....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ecovered against the sale of the same goods. He further submits that after clearing of the goods by the appellants, the job-worker has carried out the activity to packing, re-packing, labeling, re-labeling, which as per Chapter Note 5 of Chapter 38. These activities are amounts to manufacture, therefore, if any demand can be raised it should be against the job-worker and not from the appellant. ....