Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2010 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (11) TMI 812 - AT - Central ExciseWhether activity of kitting carried out by the appellants amounts to “manufacture” - appellant imported various parts/modules/accessories of Printers, Copiers and Photocopiers and performed kitting activities including assembling of all the components with the use of imported parts/modules and indigenous components and accessories - kitting activity was an essential function to make the machine operational - appellant contended that their activities were nothing but installation of Copiers-cum-Printers and no new product emerged from such activities - held that:- Moment there is a transformation into a new commodity, commercially known as distinct and a separate commodity, having its own character, use and name, whether be it the result of one process or several processes, manufacture takes place. It was only upon completion of process of kitting which comprised of assembly of the imported modules and parts along with indigenously procured parts and accessories that the machines become functional. The conversion of an article, which is incomplete or unfinished but having the essential character of finished articles into complete or finished article would amount to manufacture and the same has necessarily to be understood qua the requirement of the customers - Decided against the assessee Jurisdiction of the excise officer for conducting the investigation and adjudication proceedings - Held that:- It is settled law that when a cause of action in relation to offendable incident or in relation to series of activities which are offendable or the violation of the provisions of law arises within the jurisdiction of different investigating officers or adjudicating officers, every such officer will have jurisdiction to investigate and or adjudicate upon such offence or violation arising in all such territories. Merely because installation was carried out beyond territorial jurisdiction, once it is established that the major activity of manufacturing in relation to such machines was carried out at Rampur which lies within the jurisdiction of Meerut Commissionerate, it cannot be said that Commissioner at Meerut had no jurisdiction to investigate and adjudicate upon the matter - Decided in favor of Revenue Extended period of limitation - Held that:- The relevant information was suppressed from the department and assessee misdeclared their activity as trading activity and thereby wilfully indulged in contravention of the provisions of the said Act and the Rules made thereunder with intent to evade the duty payable on those goods. Obviously, therefore, the authorities were justified in invoking extended period of limitation. Penalty - Held that:- There was a clear case of suppression of material facts with intent to evade the duty and that itself justified the imposition of penalty. See Dharamendra Textile Processors (2008 (9) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT)
|