9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (6) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty of Rs. 5,000/-. 2. The appellant has two units, one at Tiruchirapally and the other at Karur. Railway brake blocks (iron casting) were being manufactured at the Karur factory, while certain other products were under manufacture at the Tiruchirapally factory. Appellant had not taken excise licence for Karur factory and brake blocks were being cleared without payment of duty. Excise officers visited the Karur factory on 2-9-1988 and finding the above state-of-affairs seized the manufactured goods available in the factory. Show cause notice dated 27-2-1989 was issued alleging that brake blocks fall under Heading 86.07 and duty was payable and proposing demand of duty in respect of clearances made without payment of duty during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime incorporated in the tariff under T.I. 25 only in 1964. New Tariff Heading 73.07 deals with iron castings and new tariff Heading 86.07 deals with parts of railway rolling stocks. It was further pointed out appellant bona fide believed that since brake blocks are essentially iron castings and iron castings are specifically covered by Heading 73.07, appellant was under bona fide belief that the goods in question attracted Heading 73.07 and not 86.07. It was for this reason that declaration was not filed before the Superintendent having jurisdiction over Karur factory and classification list was not filed and licence was not taken out. It was also pointed out that duty was not paid since iron castings falling under Heading 73.07 would enjoy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were classifiable as iron castings under Heading 73.07 and consequently the failure to apply for licence cannot amount to suppression, specially in the absence of any conscious or deliberate withholding of information. This decision has been followed by the Tribunal in Bakshi Steels Ltd. v. COCE, Jaipur - 1994 (71) E.L.T. 1013 (Tribunal), in which case also declaration had been filed. According to Shri Jayaraman, JDR these decisions are distinguishable inasmuch as in those cases the assessee had filed declaration. 7. The third decision placed before us in Final Order E/5/95-B1 in Appeal No. E/490/88-B of the Tribunal. Appellant in that case M/s. Nagpur Alloy Castings Ltd. were manufacturing `inserts' which are cast iron products embe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
