Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: multifunction printer in M/S Xerox India Ltd vs Cce, Meerut-Ii on 29 July, 2010Matching Fragments
2. We have heard at length the ld. Advocates for the appellants and the Jt. CDR for the respondent. We have perused the written submissions filed on behalf of the parties, as well as other materials placed on record.
3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Photocopier and are also engaged in trading of Digital Multifunctional Printers, Copiers and Photocopiers-cum-Printers, and Photo Receptors-cum Printers. Pursuant to visit by the Preventive Wing personnel of the Central Excise Department, Meerut to the factory premises of the appellants on 17th August, 2005, certain documents were seized under a Panchnama. Simultaneously, the statements of Shri S.K. Gupta, Financial Controller, Shri Nitin Jagtap, Head Technical Support Shri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Sr. Manager (Distribution), Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, Dy. General Manager (Imports) and Shri Prabhat Kumar Gupta, General Manager (Planning and Technical) were recorded under section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In the course of investigation and pursuant to the scrutiny of the said statements and documents, it was revealed to the Department that the appellants were engaged in the manufacturing activities of goods under the guise of trading and such goods were cleared without payment of duty. And thus, they were engaged in clandestine removal of such goods without payment of duty. On completion of the investigation, a show cause notice dated 18th of April, 2007 came to be issued to the appellants. The same was contested while contending that their activities were nothing but installation of Copiers-cum-Printers and no new product emerged from such activities. Even if the process was to be termed as manufacturing, the same was carried out beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Meerut and in any case the demand was barred by limitation and there was no case for invoking of extended period of limitation. The Commissioner after hearing the parties passed the impugned order as stated above. Hence the present appeals.