9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (10) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty of Rs. 2,000/- imposed on appellant. The show cause notice is dated 18-10-1989. 2. Briefly, Assistant Collector of Central Excise approved Classification List No. 146/88-89 w.e.f. 1-7-1989 under 8439.00 and Part-II price list on 7-6-1988. Goods were cleared Paper Pulp making machinery in SKD condition on 5 GPs and RT 12s covering these were finally assessed accepting duty paid. After investigations by Preventive Section, show cause notice (supra) seeks : (a) reclassification of Drive & Transmission section of the paper under 8483.00; and (b) inclusion of Rs. 3,80,000/- (Technical know-how charges) in assessable value of de-inking plant supplied in late 1988 (Duty involved Rs. 59,850/-). The former mainly consisted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dence is led to show that the amount collected by appellants was passed on to them with interest. Since appellants did not disclose such additional collection, they suppressed it with intention to evade. 5. We have carefully considered the arguments on both sides and records of the case and our findings on the seven issues raised by the appellant is as follows : 1. A show cause notice is issued alleging contravention of law to put the affected parties to notice. It may contain alleged infractions of one or more laws. There is nothing in the Central Excise Act or Rules which prohibits a single show cause notice to be issued on questions of classification for one set of clearances and on valuation for another set, and for differen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. It is also not correct to say that in the impugned order duty has been demanded without reclassification. The show cause notice seeks reclassification from 8439.00 to 8483.00 and goes on to demand the differential duty arising out of this. The impugned order first discuss at para 10 the classification of the products and then only confirms the differential duty demand in para 12. We do not find any infirmity or inconsistency in this approach. 5. Considering the classification of the product under CETA, 1985, we find that admittedly, these consist mainly of Gear and Gear boxes, Shafts, Pulleys & Wheels. We find that Heading 84.83 contains a specific description listing each of these parts. We also find that as per Note 2(a) to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, including pulley blocks". Therefore, it is clear that each of these 5 items is specifically described under the Heading 84.83. 7. The note 2(a) to Section XVI reads as follows : "2. Subject to Note 1 to this Section, Note 1 to Chapter 84 and to Note 1 to Chapter 85, parts of machines (not being parts of the articles of Heading No. 84.84, 85.44, 85.45, 85.46 or 85.47) are to be classified according to the following rules : (a) Parts which are goods included in any of the headings of Chapter 84 or Chapter 85 (other than Heading Nos. 84.09, 84.31, 84.48, 84.66, 84.73, 84.85, 85.03, 85.22, 85.29, 85.38 and 85.48) are in all cases to be classified in their respective headings." 8. A plain reading thereof shows that sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charges have a clear nexus to manufacture of goods. Indeed, without it the goods cannot be manufactured. Therefore, their cost/ charges are includible in the assessable value of the goods. Since the appellants received these additional considerations but did not disclose it to the department, though they were required to do so, therefore they have suppressed these facts. By keeping this money with themselves without disclosure they have shown their mala fides. Hence extended period has been rightly invoked.
7. In view of the aforesaid findings, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order that compels us to interfere with it. As a result, there is no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
