TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 642X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... machinery parts and sugar mill machinery parts attracted duty at the rate of 15% ad valorem and those for gear boxes, bearing-housing and pulleys were dutiable at the rate of 20% ad valorem. From 23-6-1988, all these castings and cast articles of iron were chargeable to duty at the rate of Rs. 500/- PMT. The department found that the appellants had manufactured and cleared castings and cast articles of iron intended for paper mill machinery, sugar mill machinery, gear boxes, bearing-housing and pulleys, during the period 1-3-1988 to 3-11-1988 without payment of duty or observing any other central excise formalities. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the party demanding duty of Rs. 3,46,058.73 on the above clearances for the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was aware of the fact that their foundry had no facility for machining unmachined castings. He submitted that the machining was done by their buyers. Ld. Consultant submitted that the department had not succeeded in discharging their burden of showing that the goods in question were machined castings of machinery parts and therefore the goods should be treated as unmachined castings, which were exempt from payment of duty during the period of dispute. In this connection, ld. Consultant relied on the Tribunal s decision in Jagriti Industries v. CCE, Aurangabad - 2004 (167) E.L.T. 442 (Tri.-Del.). Ld. DR reiterated the findings recorded by the Additional Collector. 3. We have carefully considered the submissions. The allegation raised in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... letter having been received by the department nor is there any mention of this letter in the memorandum of appeal. We are therefore unable to give any credence to the said letter. There is no other evidence, in this case, of the department having come to know, during or after the period of dispute, that the appellants were manufacturing and clearing only unmachined castings of iron during the said period. The appellants have had no case that they filed classification list for the said period in respect of unmachined castings. Though they claimed before the adjudicating authority that they had filed classification list, they failed to produce any copy thereof. Even before us, they have not produced any copy of any such classification list. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
