TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 368
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Show Cause Notices were issued proposing demand of duty along with interest and to impose penalty. It has been alleged that the appellant had cleared the goods of different varieties as recorded in DSA under the head For Other Purposes without payment of duty and without issuing Invoices during the period 2004-05 to 2008-09 (Upto November 2008). The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty along with interest and imposed penalty. By the impugned Order the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. The Main contention on the appellant is that their product Cake, is of highly perishable nature and short lived. It is submitted that i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y should adhere to the central excise act and rules and performed their manufacturing activities within the framework of the departmental acts and rule and if they are not so well acquainted they could have intimate the department before receipt of such materials based on only their goods return Memo which cannot be done in Central Excsie Rules when there is no further reconditioning/remaking etc. and without proper duty paying documents in support of their claim they those are duty paid godos and received only for the purpose of destruction of such duty paid goods. In fact manufactured goods if once cleared against payment of duty, cannot be taken back for destruction. The provision of destruction of godos are covered in Central Excise und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... adopted by the appellant clearly establishes malafide intention on their party for which they have taken such dubious modus operandi to bring the defective goods in their factory premises which is not backed by any law for the time being in force and which they have not intimated to the department before taking such practice being followed for the material period. 6.4 I find that adjudicating authority in his impugned O-I-O dated 30.04.2010 has relied upon the decision of Gulabchand Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCEx., Hyderabad : 2006 (184) ELT 263 (Tri.Bang.) against which the appellant in their grounds of appeal has stated that is not maintainable in the circumstances of the present case inasmuch as the Hon'ble Tribunal, Bangalore has held....