2000 (5) TMI 898

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ounting Structure 4252751.62 2. S.T. Support 1135451.47 3. V Shape Cross Arms 3197427.50 4. E.G. Stirrups 424738.07 5. Street Light Pole Clamps 6250.00 6. Mounting Structure 3663523.00 7. R.C.C/P.C.C. Pole clamps 2548533.14 8. D.P. Set 3482742.35 9. Anchor Rods 6395671.09 10. T.C. Sets 6948918.99 11. 2/3/4 Pin Cross Arms 17080127.46 12. Tower Parts 8170458.00 13. Fish Plates 227308.32 14. Grounding Pipe 2257009.01 15. O.D.S Parts 4959834.36 16 H.T. Mounting Cubicles 1243219.99 17. Street Light Fittings (Brackets) 340557.33 18. Setting Templates 15945.21 19. Take up arrangement parts 130289.00 20. Fuse Boxes 1034416.56 21. Dropout Fittings/Fuse carriers 944134.25 22. H.G.Fuse uni....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ms have already been considered by various authorities as not being excisable goods as can be seen from the statements below: - Sl. No. Items Assessable Value   Ref No & Date 1. G.O.S. Mounting Structure Rs. 4252751.62   FO Nos. 323-325/99-B1 Dtd. 18-3-99 2. S.T. Support Rs. 1135451.47   1814/98 Dtd. 10-9-98 3. V Shape Cross Arms Rs. 3197427.50   *OIO No 69/99 Dtd. 20-4-99 4. E.G. Stirrups Rs. 424738.07   1814/98 Dtd. 10-9-98 5. Street Light Pole Clamps Rs. 6250.00   25/91 Dtd. 14-10-91 6. Mounting Structur R. 3663523.00   FO No 323-325/99-B1 Dtd. 18-3-99 7. R.C.C./P.C.C.Pole clamps Rs. 2548533.14   1814/98 Dtd. 10-9-98 8. D.P. Set Rs. 3482742.35   1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Advocate further submits that apart from these 25 items, annexure to show cause notice also mentions "Other miscellaneous goods falling under T.I. 68" involving a value of Rs.60,66,569.30 and duty of Rs. 7,27,988.31. In this case, since details of the items are not shown in the show cause notice, therefore the charge contained for duty liability is vague and no duty liability arises. 7. Ld. DR submits that the order-in-original is a detailed one and has quantified duty amount as Rs. 1.15 crores and imposed penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs. He reiterates the findings in the said order impugned. 8. We have carefully considered these submissions and records of the case and we find that the order impugned is a non-speaking order despite the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ling under T.I. 68", it pre-supposes that all these conglomerations of so called "miscellaneous goods" would be dutiable under T.I. 68 even without the list of these goods with specific descriptions. This needs to be relooked into by the adjudicating authority. 10. In view of this, and also ld. Advocate's fairly conceding the duty liability of an amount of Rs. 14,23,060.26 on 10 items noted above, we find that the order impugned is a non-speaking order, which has gone beyond the SCN, and hence deserves to be set aside and the matter needs to be remanded to the Original Authority for a de novo consideration. The Original Authority shall consider each item specifically and separately and analyse the process by which it comes into existe....