9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, we take up the appeal for disposal. 2. During the period of dispute (April, 2001 to October, 2004), the appellant was engaged in the activity of converting bulk packs of excisable goods to smaller retail packs. During the said period, they undertook this activity in respect of goods falling in Chapters 29, 33 and 38 of the CETA Schedule. They did not pay duty on the retail packs. In a show-cause notice issued by the department, they were directed to pay duty on such retail packs for the aforesaid period. This demand was contested. In adjudication of the dispute, the original authority confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 9,01,534/- against the appellant under Section 11A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the repacked goods falling in Chapter 33, it is submitted by the Consultant that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) accepted their contention that there was no "deemed manufacture" for goods falling under Headings 33.01 and 33.02. However, no benefit was given to the assessee in respect of such goods while quantifying the duty demand. With regard to the goods covered by Heading 33.07, the learned Consultant submits that the deeming provision was introduced only w.e.f.1-3-2003with the amendment of Section 2(f) (definition of "manufacture") of the Central Excise Act. It is submitted that, for the period prior to1-3-2003, there was no "deemed manufacture" in respect of repacking, re-labelling etc. of bulk packs of such goods and, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... repacking from bulk packs, relabelling etc. We find that though this liability was rightly upheld by the lower appellate authority, the relief prayed for by the assessee for the period prior to1-3-2003was not granted by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant is entitled to this relief. 6. In the memorandum of appeal, the appellant has worked out an amount of Rs. 4,47,664/- as the duty which, according to them, is payable taking into account the above entitlements. In other words, duty liability to the said extent stands conceded. It appears, the appellant has already deposited an amount of Rs. 4,75,882/- before issuance of the show-cause notice and a further amount of Rs. 2 lakhs by way of pre-deposit ordered by the lower ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
