TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 999X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of the supplies to M/s General Motors also, it cannot be said that the appellant have supplied complete air conditioner machines in CKD condition. It is also seen that the appellant have placed on record invoices under which the traded items were supplied and from the perusal of these invoices, it is seen that these invoices were issued as registered dealer and the trading premises were at a place different from the location of the factor. - prima-facie view that the impugned order denying the benefit of the exemption notification no.6/2000-CE dated 1.3.2000 as amended and its successor notification is not correct and the appellant have strong prima facie case in their favour. Therefore, the requirement of pre-deposit of duty demand, and interest is waived for hearing of the appeal and recovery thereof is stayed - Stay granted. - E/Stay/53078/2014, Appeal No. E/52678/2014-EX(DB) - Stay Order No. S/50359/2015-EX(DB) - Dated:- 6-1-2015 - Rakesh Kumar And S. K. Mohanty,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri B L Narsimhan, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Pramod Kumar, DR ORDER Per: Rakesh Kumar: The appellant are manufacturers of parts/components of car a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r show cause notices were adjudicated by the Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 5.2.2014 by which the Commissioner confirmed the above mentioned duty demands covered by four show cause notices along with interest thereon under Section 11 AB. However, he did not impose any penalty. Against the above order of the Commissioner, this appeal has been filed along with stay application. 2. Heard both the sides in respect of stay application. 3. Shri B.L. Narsimhan, Advocate, the ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that exemption Notification no.6/2006-CE (Sl.No.226) and its successor notification exempted parts of the air conditioning machines falling under heading 84.15, that the dispute is in respect of the goods manufactured by the appellant and supplied to M/s. Daewoo Motors and M/s General Motors, that so far as M/s. Daewoo Motors are concerned, the appellant were manufacturing only the compressors, blowers and condensers and the heater evaporator meant for supply to M/s. Daewoo Motors was being imported and supplied from a different place, that thus, the goods supplied to M/s. Daewoo Motors were only the parts of the air conditioners and not the complete air condit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Behr India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune - III reported in 2007 (207) ELT 73 (Tribunal-Mumbai) has held that the benefit of the exemption Notification no.6/2000-CE (Sl.No.212A) as amended by Notification No.22/2000-CE read with Board's Circular No.666/57/2002-CX dated 25.09.2002 cannot be denied, along with some manufactured items, some items procured from outside are also supplied from the factory, that same view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of Keihin Panalfa Ltd. Vs. CCE, Noida reported in2003 (151) ELT 367 (Tribunal-Delhi), that the ratio of these judgments of the Tribunal is that even if a manufacturer manufacturing some components in his factory and purchasing remaining components from the market and supplying complete kit from the factory, he cannot be considered to have supplied complete air conditioning in CKD so as to disqualify him for exemption and for the purpose of exemption a manufacturer will be considered to have supplied complete air conditioning machine so as to merit denial of the exemption only if he has manufactured all the parts in his factory, that in view of the above submissions, the impugned order is not correct and the appellant have str ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pretory Rules 2(a) of the Central Excise Tariff. The contention of the appellant is that they are manufacturing certain parts, that in respect of the supply to M/s. Daewoo Motors, they are manufacturing only the compressors, blowers and condensers and the heater evaporators meant for supply to the M/s Daewoo Motors is being imported and supplied from the trading premises and similarly, in respect of the supply to M/s. General Motors, they are manufacturing all the parts except the blowers and condensers and the blowers and condensers meant for supply to the M/s General Motors were being imported and supplied from their trading premises. The Board's Circular No.666/57/2002-CE dated 25.09.2002 with regard to the above mentioned exemption notification clarifies that for the purpose of the above exemption notification the goods supplied would be treated as complete air conditioning machines only if the same comprised of the Evaporator (coolings coil), condenser, motor, fan or blower for circulating the air, compressor, and capillary line (expansion valve) and if an assembly or a kit (even in CKD or SKD form) does not have all the above components, it will not be considered to have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a manufacturer which have to be taken into account and not the parts which were not manufactured and supplied as trading activity. Thus, the Appellant cannot be treated as having supplied complete airconditioning machines to M/s Daewoo Motors. Similarly in respect of the supply to M/s General Motors, the appellant have manufactured and supplied all the parts except the compressors and blowers which were imported and supplied separately from the trading premises. Therefore, in respect of the supplies to M/s General Motors also, it cannot be said that the appellant have supplied complete air conditioner machines in CKD condition. It is also seen that the appellant have placed on record invoices under which the traded items were supplied and from the perusal of these invoices, it is seen that these invoices were issued as registered dealer and the trading premises were at a place different from the location of the factor. 7. In view of the above discussion, we are of the prima-facie view that the impugned order denying the benefit of the exemption notification no.6/2000-CE dated 1.3.2000 as amended and its successor notification is not correct and the appellant have strong prima f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
