TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 813X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds. Therefore, demand of differential duty on such goods which were imported at concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 25/99-Cus. and were used for repair of CPTs is clearly sustainable. - appellant was fully aware that the repair of CPTs did not amount to manufacture, it was also aware that the goods imported at concessional rate of duty were to be used only for manufacture of excisable goods and still it used those goods for repair. Not only that when information was sought, it indulged in prevarication. - processes undertaken clearly supported the conclusion that they amounted to manufacture while in its own case, CESTAT had given a finding that repair of CPTs did not amount to manufacture. - No infirmity in the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the know of the fact that repair did not amount to manufacture. It also did not cooperate in providing information sought by Revenue in this regard. For that reason the Commissioner confirmed impugned differential duty along with interest and penalty. 3. The appellant has contended that: (i) Way back 2001 it declared that it was received defective CPTs in its factory for repairs. (ii) A defective CPTs underwent processes which amounted to manufacture. It cited the CESTAT judgment in case of CCE, Ahmedabad Vs. Tudor (I) Ltd. 2006 (197) ELT 53. (iii) The repaired CPTs were cleared on payment of Central Excise duty. (iv) It cited judgments in the case of Collector of Central Excise Vs. Chemphar Drugs Liniments 1989 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate of removal and on the value determined under sub-section (2) of section 3 or section 4 or section 4A of the Act, as the case may be. [Explanation. The amount paid under this sub-rule shall be allowed as CENVAT credit as if it was a duty paid by the manufacturer who removes the goods.] (3) If there is any difficulty in following the provisions of sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2), the assessee may receive the goods for being re-made, refined, re-conditioned or for any other reason and may remove the goods subsequently subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Commissioner. As per the said Rule 16 even if the repair did not amount to manufacture, the appellant was required to pay at the time of clearance of repa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it to the extent of ₹ 3,40,398/- on components like Magnet, Compation Plate, Sonibond, Rubber Wedge, etc. used in repairs of such defective CPTs would clearly show that they carried out repair work and not replacement. Learned Counsel for the appellant would further submit that there were no evidence of any excess production produced by the Department. It was also submitted that denial of Modvat on electron gun is totally unsustainable. If the loss of electron gun during the process is taken into account correctly it will be seen that there is no diversion of electron gun. According to the appellant reliance placed on MIS reports by the Commissioner is unjustified. Month-wise MIS report would show the figures of mount yield varying fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even indicated that it will be using goods imported at concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 25/1999-Cus. for repair work. Indeed there is no evidence to show that the appellant ever informed Revenue about using goods imported at concessional rate of duty for such repair work. The appellant was a well established manufacture of CPTs and was fully aware that the concessional rate of duty was applicable to only such goods as were used for manufacture of excisable goods. It was also aware that its repair activity did not amount to manufacture as it was so held by CESTAT in its own case wayback in 2004. In spite of that it used such parts for repairs which clearly shows its intention to evade customs duty by indulging in suppression ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
