TMI Blog1983 (12) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . V.S.T. Tillers Tractors Ltd., situated at Whitefield Road, Bangalore, held a licence for manufacture of Power Tillers and parts. They filed classification lists on 21-1-75 indicating that (i) CT 85 Tillers with AD 8 Engine; (ii) AD 8 Engine and (iii) job works were assessable to duty under Tariff Entry No. 68 and that the spare parts and attachments for tillers were not excisable as they were bought out and warehoused for trading purposes only. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore-1, visited the factory during January, 1980, and noticed that the licencee was manufacturing parts for power tillers for captive consumption availing exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 118/75 dated 30-4-1975. The present procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ench to a letter sent by him to the Department dated 10-3-1975 wherein the appellants have informed the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, that the appellants presumed that the spare parts did not attract Central excise duty as they were meant for trading only. Shri Ravi developed an argument that there was no reply to this letter which ex facie pointed out that the presumption of the appellants was not rebutted by the department at the earlier stage. He also drew our attention to the classification list, Annexure I, Form 10, filed on 21-3-1975 wherein he had referred to the spare parts and attachments for tillers and the explanation in the remarks column that they were not excisable as they were bought out and warehoused for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sideration is whether the duty once charged on the parts at factories of the job workers can be charged to duty again. The appellants contend that some of the forgings and other items are given to third parties and that there was no further manufacture of these parts at their end. In other words, it was urged that if parts had already been charged for excise duty from the job workers (as in the case of invoice from N.S. Krishnarao Body Works Pvt. Ltd. for Lever Side Clutch, teeth cutting operations, gears and transmissions), duty cannot be claimed all over again. It was further urged that these job workers are independent sub-contractors. In such circumstances also, it is pointed out that the goods cannot be charged with excise duty in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... necessary for the Collector to arrive at a finding whether an excisable product comes into existence after such processes. 6. On the question of limitation, the learned counsel for the appellants relied only on the letter dated 10-3-1975 and the classification list. He argued that there was no wilful suppression of facts and hence the longer period of five years under Rule 10 would not be attracted. In our view, the letter of 10-3-1975 is definitely vague and uncertain. The appellants cannot rely on that letter to make out that there was no wilful suppression of particulars. An opportunity arose when the appellants had necessarily to file classification lists in respect of the clearances when it was incumbent upon them to file the necess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
