TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 365
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for denial of benefit of exemption Notification No.8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003. 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a proprietorship concern and engaged in the manufacture of LT/HT Hardware fittings and electronic and transmission line. The appellant was also engaged in the trading activities. During the course of their business, during the period 2005-06, the appellants were awarded with some orders from M/s. Ajmeer Biduyt Vitaran Nigam Ltd. and other customers namely M/s. Krishna Electrical Industries, M/s. Steel Art Industries & M/s. Handi Tool (Electricals) Pvt.Ltd. As the appellants were not having capacity to manufacture the entire quantity of goods, therefore, some items were manufactured by the appellants in their fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 01.03.2003, which is available to SSI Units. The appellant contested the show cause notice stating that they have manufactured he goods only of an amount of Rs.43,34,718/- and remaining is trading sales, but in the Order-in-Original, the contention of the appellant were denied and the demand was confirmed. The appellant filed appeal before the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) and Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) found that during the course of investigation, certain documents were seized and on the basis of those documents, was of the opinion that the appellant was involved in manufacturing and trading activities and the matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority to verify how much is the purchases made of finished goods by the appellant fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant during the course of investigation, which is contrary to the facts of this case, therefore, the impugned order to be set aside. Consequently, the refund claim be allowed as they have filed the refund claim within one year of the dropping of the proceedings against the appellant. 7. On the other hand, the Ld.AR for the department supported the impugned order. 8. Heard the parties, considered the submissions. 9. We find that during the course of investigation initial statement of Shri Rathi was recorded wherein he has stated that during the impugned period the appellant has manufactured goods amounting to Rs.43,34,716/- and traded the goods of an amount of Rs.1,38,84,089/. The said statement is supported by the various documents....