9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Chapter 10 Procedures in terms of Notification No. 217/85-CE dated 8-10-1985 as amended. In the manufacture of crank shafts they also obtained forgings. While the forgings used in the manufacture of crank shafts cleared on payment of duty are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 217/86, the Assistant Collector decided that the forgings used in the manufacture of crank shafts cleared under Chapter 10 Procedure at NIL rate of duty are not entitled for the said exemption under Notification No. 217/86, accordingly, demanded differential duty for various items in terms of the orders-in-original. The same were contested by the appellants before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals), after detailed consideration disa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing goods different from raw materials and being goods having a distinct name as forged parts of machinery, are to be treated as finished goods as for as they are concerned, although they are required to be subjected to further processing for manufacture of crankshafts (component parts of machinery). The forged parts attract duty at specific rate, under relevant notification, whereas the finished crankshafts attract, ad valorem rate of duty under the relevant heading. Moreover, the forged crankshafts/forgings are also cleared as such from factories manufacturing such forgings on payment of duty. Hence they have a distinct, identity as finished goods (irrespective of classification) with distinct tax liability and marketability. In view of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levy is leviable in the present case and the findings arrived at by the 5 Member Bench of the Larger Bench will have a very clear bearing and the same is applicable to the facts of the case. The Larger Bench has also noticed the aspect pertaining to clubbing of notification vis-a-vis of Rule 57C and have held that part of the final products which are cleared free from whole of duty are not eligible to the benefit of notification. 5. In that view of the matter, applying the ratio of the Larger Bench judgment in the case of Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. v. Collector reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 835 (Tri.), we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order and hence the impugned orders are confirmed by dismissing the appeals. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
