TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 711
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reby he partly allowed the appeal of the appellant and partly rejected it. 2. The appellant was engaged in manufacturing MS Shuttering Plates, MS Round Shuttering Plates, MS Crash Bar Plates, MS Hunch Plates, MS Trusses, MS Jali, MS Bar, MS Pier Cap Set, MS Concrete Buckets etc. On the basis of information that the appellant was evading central excise duty, a search operation was conducted in the factory, residence and two other premises of the appellant, panchnamas were drawn, statements were recorded and after completing investigation, a show cause notice [SCN] dated 30.06.2016 was issued to the appellant demanding central excise duty of Rs. 5,71,164/- (including excise duty, education cess, Secondary and Higher Education cess and clean ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h need to be excluded ; (iii) That value of Non-Manufactured goods wrongly considered as dutiable and confirmed the duty which is required to be deleted. (iv) That demand of Energy cess is not sustainable as per provisions of law ; (v) That penalty has wrongly been confirmed under section 11AC of CEA, 1944 ; (vi) That looking to demand of duty not sustainable on merits hence interest has wrongly been confirmed under section 11AA of CEA, 1944. 6. Learned Chartered Accountant who represented the appellant prayed that the impugned order may be set aside. We now proceed to examine the grounds of the appeal. The first ground of the appellant is that it had been wrongly denied the benefit of the SSI exemption for the period 2014-2015. A ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Shuttering Plates, MS Crash Bar Plates, MS Hunch Plates, MS Trusses, MS Jali, MS Bar, MS Pier Cap Set, MS Concrete Bucket etc. as indicated in the SCN. We have considered this submission. It is a well settled principle that manufacture involves change, but every change is not manufacture. Manufacture requires that a new distinct marketable goods should be produced. In this case, the raw material which the appellant was using was steel sheets, as known in the market. What the appellant was producing were MS Shuttering Plates, MS Round Shuttering Plates, MS Crash Bar Plates, MS Hunch Plates, MS Trusses, MS Jali, MS Bar, MS Pier Cap Set, MS Concrete Bucket etc. which are different products known to the market. The appellant is not selling its ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....According to the learned counsel, invoice No. 16 was issued and signed by Ms. Ritu Saraf who was not authorized to sign the bill. Therefore, another correct bill with invoice No. 24 was issued with proper person for the same consignment. After considering this submission, we agree that there is a duplication in these two invoices as all the details match and one may be deleted ; (ii) Entry No. 96, 108 and 122 to the Annexure G to SCN pertain to supplies made to M/s AXIOM Engineering and Contractors, Ujjain. According to the learned counsel, these three invoices No. 52, 57 and 69 were issued during 2014-2015 and invoices No. 44, 48 and 40 of 2015-2016 were also issued for the same quantity of the goods in the name of same party during 2015....