TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 3 for charging Central Excise duty, whether the Department has a case or not, in our opinion, requires further consideration. Further it was also submitted that the product is exempt from payment of duty under Notification No.25/2008-CE also requires consideration by the Commissioner. Since the amount involved is small, the learned counsel submitted that he has no objection to deposit this amount if the matter is being remand for fresh consideration - assessee directed to make pre-deposit of duty - matter remanded back for fresh decision. - E/1313/2012-DB - Final Order . 20947/2014 - Dated:- 6-6-2014 - SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY AND SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Anil Kumar and Shri Cherian Punnoose, Advocates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cture. It was the submission that this does not amount to manufacture at all according to the appellants. It was submitted that Commissioner has accepted in his order that the item in dispute is a replaceable part of the filter machinery and it was submitted that the replaceable kits of which the product in dispute is a part were exempted vide Notification No.25/2008-CE dt. 28/04/2008 and therefore the disputed goods are exempt. We are also not able to agree with this submission since the present product is a part of replaceable kit and cannot be considered as replaceable kit. As observed by the learned Commissioner, the resin is filled into a plastic container and the emerging product HP resin chamber is part of the water filter and as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter requires fresh consideration by the Commissioner. The learned counsel also relied upon the Circular No.464/30/99 dt. 30/06/1999. All these aspects are required to be considered and therefore it was agreed by both the sides that it would be appropriate to remand the matter at this stage itself. Further learned AR, while agreeing that the matter may be remanded, submitted that the appellant should be put to terms. This is on the ground that during the year 2007-08, the appellants had not calculated the duty payable under CAS4 properly and they had omitted the 10% to be added to the cost of production. Consequent to this, there is a demand of ₹ 1,70,945/-. Since the amount involved is small, the learned counsel submitted that he h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
