TMI Blog1988 (7) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that despite an intimation from the Range Superintendent of Central Excise, Appellants had failed to comply with the statutory requirements of recording production and removal of the goods. Accordingly, duty amounting to Rs. 91,406.53 has been demanded and penalty of Rs. 20,000/- has been imposed on the appellants. 2. None appears on behalf of the appellants who have requested to be excused from personal hearing and prayed that their appeal may be decided on the basis of merits and as per records. 3. Shri L.C. Chakrabarti, JDR has argued on behalf of the Department. The learned Departmental Representative has reiterated the view taken in the order-in-original. 4. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd in consideration of the facts that the said operations like forming, blanking are basically common place operations which are performed by machine tools on surfaces such as metal, wood, leather, asbestos sheets etc. the dies and tools in question used in the manufacture of gaskets are in no way different from the tools .used in a machine tool. The fact that these are specially designed and may be used only in specific applications is not relevant to the issue........ 6. These findings leave the main question to be decided un-answered and unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, and this question is - are these tools designed to be fitted into hand tools, machine tools or tools for working in hand? 7. The appellants contend that the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sheets were cut into required shape, and the product was then moved manually, until the entire sheet was used up for cutting there from the pieces of required shape. As in this case, the respondents claimed that the impugned goods were not fitted to any tools and that their movement was manual. The Tribunal considered the decision in the case of M/s. Die Bearing Ltd. E.A. No. 380/82-D in which the dies for cutting out of sheets of metal into a particular shape were held to be classifiable under Tariff Item 51A(iii) CET but that was for the reason that the die was to be fitted to a machine tool for being operated for cutting metal to a pre-determined shape. In the case of Bata (India) on the other hand, the Tribunal held that the movements ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration and decision after due satisfaction in regard to the facts of the case. The demand for duty is, therefore, set aside and this aspect is remanded to the Additional Collector for re-adjudication. 12. Coming now to the penalty imposed, we find that under Rule 174-A there is an exemption from the operation of Rule 174 in respect of goods which are exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon unconditionally. Since appellants claimed an exemption which is of a conditional nature, they were required to take out Central Excise Licence; They have, therefore, acted in violation of Rule 174 of Central Excise Tariff Rule. 13. The question, however, arises whether this violation of Rule 174 merits imposition of penalty of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
