9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The learned SDR, despite having addressed a letter calling upon the Commissioner to file their reply by 15-2-2006, he has not received the same. He submits that in such a circumstance, he is not in a position to respond to the misc. order. 3. The learned Counsel again argued the matter and files detailed written submission. It is his submission that the allegation in the Show Cause Notice is misdeclaration of the spares of Mobile Image Intensifiers and X-Ray machines. The main allegation is that during manufacturing the said Mobile Image Intensifiers and X-Ray machines, certain interior products come into existence which are dutiable and hence duty has been raised on the intermediary parts. The main submissions made by the appellants in the matter in the written submission is extracted herein below :- 1. The Issues involved in the present Appeal are i. Whether the Appellants made a Declaration under Rule 173B from 1998 onwards in respect of Mobile Image Intensifiers (Mlls) consisting of S - Cat items, viz., Mobile Base Stenoscope, Monitor Cart, Image Intensifier-16 CM/22 CM, DR-4, MD 10, MDA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uggy (Base System) * Monitor Trolley a. The C-Arm Buggy as well as Monitor Trolley are so inter-connected/dove tailed into each other that these cannot be used separately as such, on other C-Arm systems. b. The C-Arm normally comprises of : * X-ray System Generator * X-ray Tube and Housing * Imager Intensifier * TV Camera * TV Monitor * Thermal Printer & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs manufactured by them. They clearly mentioned that, major Hi-end components except the base assembly are all imported. Further, in the statements of Girish Wardadkar, G.M., dated 11-10-1999 and 12-10-1999 [Page Nos. 448 & 449], he clearly mentioned that, the parts required for the manufacture of C-Arm Mobile Image Intensifier are imported from France, Belgium and other countries of Europe. Certain parts are procured locally from GE BEL. No Modvat credit has been taken on such parts. They would also like to refer to his statement dated 26-7-2001 [Pages 212 - 215] in which he has clearly stated that all the hi-end items are bought out/imported from various vendors. Further, M.C. Sudarshan, in his statement, dated 18-7-2001 [Pages 191-194] clearly stated that the S-Cat items, which were declared separately as dutiable products are not manufactured and are not dutiable. However, they have declared in their classification the S-Cat items, which are sold by them. The Appellants would also like to refer to the order dtd. 30-6-2000 passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune VIII, in which he clearly held that the parts o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Trolley. This fact that the said S-Cat items are imported, is evident from the three letters dtd. 4-11-1998 (Pg. 444-447, Vol. II) and 22-9-1998. (Pg. 466 - 484 Vol. II) all addressed to the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range VI, Pune. The letters further show briefly as to how the said S-Cat items are utilized in the manufacturing process of C-Arm Mobile Image Intensifiers with the help of a Chart. 3. The Appellants submit that the ld. Commissioner misdirected himself in demanding duty, ignoring the fact that 90% of the finished products viz., Mobile Image Intensifiers have been exported. Further, the Commissioner totally ignored the C.B.E.C. Circular No. 229/63/96-CX. dated 8-7-1996 and No. 303/19/97-CX. dated 11-3-1997, [Pg Nos. 661-663, Vol. II] on the ground that the Appellants have not exported the goods under Rule 13 of the CER, 1944. [Para 28 of OIO; Pg. 370; Vol. I; Kansal Knitwears v. CCE - 2001 (136) E.L.T. 457 (T) Pg. 664 to 669 ; 4 R Health Care Products v. CCE - 2004 (166) E.L.T. 469 (T) Pg 670 ]. The Appellants su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and therefore no demand sustains on these goods. [Paras 29 and 30 Order, Pg. Nos. 371-372; Vol. I]. The differential duty demanded on these goods work out to Rs. 57,55,582/- [Pg. Nos. 671 - 689; Vol. II]. As against this an abatement of only Rs. 17,71,660/- has been allowed in the impugned order. However, the basis on which this amount has been arrived at, has not been indicated in the said order. Without prejudice to the above, as far as the demand for differential duty in respect of other parts of X-ray machines and MII's and amounting to Rs. 1,28,12,935/- (Rs. 1,85,68,517/- minus Rs. 57,55,582/-), is concerned, the Appellants would like to illustrate some of disputed items, viz., spares of X-Ray Systems, as to why they are required to be classified under Sub-Heading No. 9022.10 and not under 8479.19. For example, in the case of X - Ray Table, Tube Stand, Collimator, which are purchased from local vendors, are required to be manufactured in accordance with the specifications given by the Bureau of Indian Standards IS 7620 (Part 2) - 1986. In other words, the said goods are specifically manufactured for being used in the X ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8-1999 and 1999-2000, respectively. No Modvat credit was taken on the said spares/components, since some of the goods were procured from SSI Units. In terms Rule 57F(3), on the inputs cleared from home consumptions duty equal to the amount of credit is availed on such inputs is required to be paid. Since no input credit was taken, no duty is required to be paid. This could be verified with the relevant invoices covering the clearances, which are with the Department. 6. Without prejudice to the above, the Appellants would like to submit that with effect from 1-3-2000, goods falling under Chapter sub-heading 9022.00 (C-Arm/Mobile Image intensifiers and their parts; x-ray systems and their parts) are chargeable to 'Nil' rate of duty. Therefore, the demand for duty on the parts of x-ray systems for the period commencing from 1-3-2000 to 31-3-2001 is, therefore, not sustainable in law. As far as M. C. Sudarshan, Manager (Finance) is concerned, he is only an employee of the Company and he has not done any act of omission or commission, so as to make him liable for penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 4. The learned SDR ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
