TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1754
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch PCC Poles are manufactured by mixing sand, cement and stone chips upon a binding of MS rods. During the course of scrutiny of the assessee's record, the audit team found some such poles lying outside the factory premises. The number of such poles were ascertained as 650 pieces and reportedly manufactured during September 2013. They were kept outside the factory premises allegedly for space constraint. The show cause notice while admitting the said position contends that such removals were not reflected in the daily stock account for the month of September 2013 nor any invoice under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, was issued for the removal of the said goods on which no duty was paid. During the course of department's investiga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... successful, no further work is required to be done on the balance 99 Poles of the lot. The notice further mentions that the manufactured goods - PCC Poles were embossed with a mark symbol "WBSEDCL", which would indicate that the goods belong to West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited. We note from records that the appellant has always contended that the said mark was not a brand mark, but only indicated that the property belonged to WBSEDCL and that the goods were manufactured as per the requirements of WBSEDCL. In view of the fact that the manufactured goods carried the mark WBSEDCL the department alleged that WBSEDCL was the owner of the goods and goods were sold under specification as specified by the owner and theref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... testing process. In this regard, we note that the appellant has also contended that they admitted their lapse by not applying for remission of duty under Section 5 of the Central Excise Act in respect of such destroyed/damaged poles. For this reason we are of the view that there is no revenue implication for this and we do not find any malafide on the part of the appellant in the matter. 8. For the third issue regarding department's contention for denying SSI exemption Notification No.8/2003 for the period 2008-09 to 2012-13 (Annexure C to show cause notice) demanding a duty of Rs.80,85,514/- we do not find any merit in the plea of the Revenue that embossing with WBSEDCL, rendered the manufactured goods as branded products, thereby denyin....