SHRENO LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appellant has preferred this appeal against the above captioned impugned order dated 16.3.95 praying for quashing and setting aside the same.

(2.) In support of the appeal, the learned Counsel for appellant Shri Mayur Shroff has submitted his arguments that when the Aluminium Pipe remains as such even after redrawing, it is not a manufacture and no Central Excise duty is involved. It is not clear how duty claimed is arrived at. Permission was required under Rule 57F(2), and not under Rule 56 -B. All facts were known to Department, classification and Price -list were approved. Rule 56B application is also ordered, rejecting the permission. The extended period cannot be invoked, and no penalty is leviable. Suppression alleged is not proved. The learned SDR B.B. Sarcar for Respondent has supported the Impugned order.

(3.) Perused the show cause notice, reply, documents produced, impugned order, appeal memorandum. Also perused Rules 56B, 57F(2) and other rules referred in show cause notice and reply. The defence of appellant as per the reply to show cause notice, appeal memorandum and contention raised in the arguments; is as follows: