TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 803X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the customers and the charges for making dies were recovered from the customers. It was found that all the premises viz shed No. 70/71, 177 and 164A were separately registered under the Factories Act and Central Excise Act. Therefore, the dies cleared by the appellants to the two sheds should have been removed on payment of Central Excise duty. Accordingly, the said appellants were issued a show cause notice F. No.v. 76/3-25/Dem/06-07, dt. 3-10-06 proposing recovery of Central Excise duty on clearance of dies from Shed No. 4 as per Annexure A to the show cause notice, involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 4,70,880/-. 2. In the first round of litigation, the matter came up before Commissioner (Appeals), who remanded the matter to the orig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old to customer, but remains with the manufacturer for using in casting of articles. She also submitted that the amount and the cost has to be appropriated to each unit manufactured using the dies. She submits that Excise duty was included in the final product of the appellant and therefore the Commissioner s observations that there was no evidence of duty having been paid, is not correct. 5. Learned SDR reiterates the findings in the impugned order. 6. Before I proceed further, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant paragraphs in the show cause notice. During the course of Central Excise Audit, it is also noticed from their business records that they are also manufacturing Dies as its unit situated at Shed No. 70/71, some ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944. From the above paragraphs, it can be seen that the allegations in the show cause notice was that assessee had transferred the title in the dies to the customers, recovered the money from them, but paid the duty only when they were cleared to the customers. The paragraph also says that technically dies should have suffered duty when removed from the Shed No. 70/71 to shed nos. 177 and 164A. The paragraph is clear and would mean that the assessee is liable to pay the duty because they have moved the dies from sheds 70/71 to shed no. 164A 177. In view of the clarity in the show cause notice, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) directing the department to look for evidence of removal was right. As r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
