9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 932X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . During scrutiny of the records of the appellant, conducted by CERA it was found that the appellant has not included the value of the magnets which were imported and cleared along with EOT cranes. Therefore, the range Superintendent issued two show-cause notices dated 4.5.88 and 27.11.89 demanding differential duty on an allegation of non-inclusion of the value of the magnets in the assessable value of the EOT cranes. The said demand was confirmed by the adjudicating authority vide order-in-original dated 18.08.2000. Aggrieved by such an order the appellant preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 26.04.2001 remanded the matter back to the adjud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear cut directives and the said OIA was acceptable to both the contending parties as no appeal has been filed against said order. The show-cause-cum Demand notice states that the respondents had imported and received the magnet and had taken Modvat Credit in their R.G.23 A Pt II Register. It is thus obvious that the magnets were received in the factory and as is expected a manufacturer has to verify the working of their manufactured product before their despatch / clearance i.e. to say fully assembled EOT crane in this case. Thus, a fully assembly of the EOT crane was made attaching the magnet thereupon and when found OK; then only those would be dismantled and the EOT crane cleared in a CKD condition. Moreover, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gnets as per the requirement of the assessee's customers. He would submit that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in not considering the factual position. 5. The learned SDR on the other hand would strongly defend the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). It is his submission that the reports submitted by the Range Supdt. could have been erroneous, only for the reason that the cranes were already cleared from the factory premises, when the verification was conducted by the said officer. It is also his submission that the cranes which were cleared could not have made operational without the magnet being supplied. He would submit that such magnets were used for lifting billets and transporting them ov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s caused verification of the assessee's claim. The findings of the adjudicating authority in this case are very vital which are reproduced as under:- "The issue before me is whether the Central Excise duty is payable on lifting magnet along with other parts of the crane which were bought out items and cleared subsequent to clearance of EOT crane. Commissioner (Appeals) in his order have stated that it needs to be seen as to whether the said magnets are attached to the cranes, before clearance from the assessee's factory premises or that they were removed separately and installed at site. If the said magnets attached to the crane, before its removal, it is dutiable, otherwise not. To ascertain the factual position, range Supdt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
