2018 (8) TMI 312

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at identical issue of the very same appellant is in Appeal No.E/827/2009. We called for the records from the Registry and on perusal of the same, we find that in Appeal No.E/827/2009, Revenue has preferred an appeal against the very same Order-in-Original. Accordingly, we take up both the appeals for disposal by a common order. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the appellant herein, during the period 2004-2005 to 2007-2008 was alleged to have not discharged the Central Excise duty on the activated carbon imported by them and repacked from bulk packs to retail packs. It is the case of the department in the show cause notice that such activity would amount to manufacture as per chapter note no. 9 of chapter 38 and dema....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd Johnson Ltd [2005 (188) ELT 467], Amritlal Chemaux Ltd [2015 (321) ELT 5] for the proposition that there has to be packing and repacking from bulk packs to retail packs. As regards the appeal filed by the Revenue, it is his submission that the appeal is misdirected as there were records to show that clearances of activated carbons were in retail packs which were received or imported. 4. Learned Departmental Representative on the other hand, submits that there is nothing on the record to show that the demands which were confirmed were retail packs and there was no repacking. As regards the demands dropped by the adjudicating authority, it is submitted that the adjudicating authority has erred in only considering the submissions made by....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se documents which were produced during personal hearing, to show that they have received the goods in retail packs. No satisfactory explanation is put forth by the appellant before us on this point except to state that there is nothing on record to show that there was manipulation. In our view, if the appellant is undertaking manipulation of documents to prove his case before the adjudicating authority, it has to be held that confirmation of demand so raised are correct and that ratio of the various decisions of the Supreme Court will not be applicable in the case in hand. 7. As regards the appeal filed by the Revenue, we find that the adjudicating authority has recorded a factual finding that the appellant had received the activated ca....