TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 744X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and sold them with their brand name. It was specifically contended that repacking the bulk goods into smaller packs did not amount to manufacture in relation to any of the Chapter of Excise Tariff and that it is a trading activity and did not amount to manufacture - The Revenue authorities did not take any steps against the respondent firm pursuant to the intimation dated 28-7-1992 - It is pertinent to note that pursuant to the intimation, the Deputy Commissioner had made an order on 3-2-1998 (41/98) in respect of one of the items covered thereunder and held that there was no suppression of facts as the respondent firm has already brought the matter to the notice of the Jurisdictional Assistant Collector - Further it is to be seen that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all packs of 1 kg. and cleared as trading goods without payment of duty. On enquiry by the Revenue, it transpired that the goods ZYGLO-ZP-4B were classified under chapter sub-heading 3206.20, and by virtue of Note 3 to Chapter 32, the activity of repacking in smaller packs and labelling would amount to manufacture. According to Revenue, the goods 9C RED were classifiable under Heading 2821.90. According to Revenue, the respondent firm had deliberately suppressed the information relating to the composition of the product as also the literature relating to it with an intention to evade payment of duty. According to Revenue, no information was given in respect of such activity on the pretext that it was classifiable under Heading 3204. It ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufacture of Magnaflux consumables and fluid products including the aspect of suppression of facts and that the Jurisdictional Assistant Collector is the competent authority to decide the classification matters, but not the adjudicating authority. However, the Joint Commissioner, passed an order dated 28-3-2003 in Original C.EX. No. 26 of 2003 demanding the respondent firm to pay an amount of Rs. 2,44,459/- being the duty evaded on the goods manufactured and cleared during the period from 3/95 to 5/99 with penalty of Rs. 1,44,948/- and to pay Rs. 1,44,948/- towards interest. 3. Against that order, the respondent firm filed Appeal No. 111/2004 (H-1) CE before the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad. The learned C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal should have seen that the show cause notice was issued in respect of Plot No. 31, where repacking activity of chemicals was taking place. 5. We have perused the order-in-original, order-in-appeal, as well as order passed by the Tribunal. 6. It is to be seen that the respondent firm filed the appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) only to the extent that it rejects the contention of it that the show cause notice was time barred. The respondent firm has accepted the classification of the goods as done under the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondent firm sent the intimation on 28-7-1992 to the Jurisdictional Assistant Collector of Central Excise with a view to bring to the notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
