Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 162 - AT - Central ExciseProcess amounting to manufacture - fitting the lens on to the frames to make spectacles that can be used by a customer - Department was of the view that after fitment of the lens in to the frames a distinct new marketable commodity viz. “spectacle” emerges - N/N. 16/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 and at 6% (with CENVAT Credit) vide N/N. 19/2012 – CE dated 17.03.2012 - HELD THAT:- As categorically held by the Hon’ble High Court that the activity of fitting the power lens into the frames does not amount to manufacture. After appreciating the facts and evidence and also following the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of TITAN COMPANY LIMITED, M/S. PREMIER OPTICAL PVT. LTD., MRS. GEETANJALI D SOUZA PRABHU VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE LTU, ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHAIRMAN CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI II [2021 (10) TMI 1029 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], it is held that the activity does not amount to manufacture. The demand cannot be sustained. The issue on merits is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The department has derived the figures from the income tax returns filed by the appellant. Several audits were conducted as the appellant is registered with service tax commissionerate. Further the issue is purely interpretational in nature. There is no evidence that appellant has suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of duty. Taking these aspects in to consideration, the show cause notice issued invoking the extended period cannot sustain. The issue on limitation is answered in favour of assessee and against the department. The impugned order is entirely set aside. The appeals are allowed.
|