ROTOMAC ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides.

(2.) The appellant filed this appeal against Order -in -Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellants are manufacturing Catalyst and were clearing the same without payment of duty. The demand was confirmed in respect of Catalyst cleared by the appellant.

(3.) The contention of the appellant is that they were not manufacturing the Catalyst but they were purchasing the same from the market and clearing with industrial varnish manufactured by them. The contention is that the Revenue had not produced any evidence to show that the appellants are manufacturing the Catalyst, therefore, the demand is not sustainable. The appellant also relied upon the earlier decision of the Tribunal in their own case reported as CCE v. Rotomac Elctricals (P) Ltd., 2001 (130) ELT 927.