Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Crescent Components Pvt Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III

2016 (3) TMI 563 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Extended Period of limitation invoked - Duty demand - department was not aware whether the products in question is for use in the manufacture of Air Conditioners, therefore there is suppression of fact on the part of the Appellant - Held that:- Show cause notice dated 09.09.98 was issued for the period 14.09.93 to 31.03.97 i.e. entire demand raised is for the period before one year of the issue of show cause notice. Hence the total demand is covered under extended period as provided in the first .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ling drawings of the products supplied by Voltas Ltd. to the department. On careful perusal of the drawings, we have seen that the drawing clearly indicates Air-condition and it’s model, for example: “1.5 T RAC”, “1.5 TON NEW SPLIT RAC”, “1.5 TON RAC HI-TECH”. - From the said details given in the drawings submitted alongwith classification list, it can be known that the parts being manufactured by the appellant is meant for use in the manufacture of Air Conditioners. However from the above .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

therefor. We find that the bonafide belief of the appellant for classification of the goods can not be doubted in view of the above undisputed facts. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority should not have invoked the extended period as there is no suppression of the facts on the part of the appellants. The entire demand, therefore, is hit by limitation. - Decided in favour of assessee - Appeal No. E/2363 & 2364/05 - Dated:- 5-1-2016 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) F .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

000/- on Shri. Sharad B. Shah, Director of M/s. Crescent Components (P) Ltd under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and also ordered for recovery of appropriate interest under Section 11AB. 2. The fact of the case is that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of goods viz. Springs & Sheet Metal components since 14/9/1993. The appellants have filed a declaration under Notification No. 13/92(NT) dated 14/5/1992 claiming exemption (i) under Notification No.1/93 CE dated 28/2/1993 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on and Steel falling under Chapter sub heading 7320.00 and availed exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE dated 28/2/1993. Under these heading the appellants were clearing products like Grill Assembly, Black Grill Assembly and other parts to M/s. Voltas Ltd. Thane, who in turn used these parts in manufacture of Air Conditioning Machinery or Compressor for Room Air Conditioners. Therefore it appears that these parts are nothing but parts of Air Conditioning machinery and Compressor for Room Air .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

drawings and as per the drawing the products were manufactured. They stated that from the drawings supplied by M/s. Voltas they cannot make out the end use of the product and they have never enquired with them regarding the end use of the product. 2.2 Appellants on being informed by the Deptt. started paying higher duty under the protest on the product Grill Assembly and Back Grill under Chapter heading 8415.00 FROM 13/10/1995. The said goods were manufactured as per the drawings/specifications .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e the CESTAT, wherein Honble Tribunal vide Order No. A-726-27/WZB/2004/C-III dated 16/6/2004 remanded the case for fresh adjudication following the ratio of the decisions in the case of Arigrill Industries Vs. CCE reported in [2001(132) ELT 646(Tri.) and [2002(141) ELT a90(SC) as well as Trade Notice No. 67 dated 30/9/1986. In the denovo adjudication proceedings, Ld. Commissioner has passed the impugned Order-in- Original No. 18/2004-2005 dtd. 29/3/2005. Being aggrieved by the said impugned ord .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e of a detail enquiry and statements were recoded on 12/10/1995 and the samples of the products under dispute were drawn, therefore the demand is time bar. 4.1 Ld. Counsel further submits that duty demand was confirmed without appreciating the fact that the appellant had filed classification list from time to time alongwith the copies of the drawings supplied by M/s. Voltas Ltd indicating the number and description of the parts being manufactured by the appellant. The Range Superintendent had vi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.90 and 7318.90. Appellants factory was also audited on 5/11/1996 and there were no objections raised neither on the classification of the product nor the exemptions claimed by the appellant. 4.2 He further submits that vide their letter 9/2/2005 they have submitted that Delhi Trade Notice No. 67-ce(1-Ch 84) 86 dated 30/9/1996 clearly identifies the product manufactured by them as Sr. No. 26,29,35,37 of the Annexure B, the said Trade Notice which confirms the product classification under Chapte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r submits that the issue of classification of Steel, Aluminium/Plastic grills used in Air conditioners were considered by Board Circular No. 548/44/2000-CX dated 13/9/2000 and concluded so far as the multi purpose use of grills are concerned the same are classifiable under respectively Chapters 76, 73, & 39 as the case may be depending upon the constituent materials. He placed reliance on : (a) Airgrill Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore[2001(132) ELT 646(Tri. Bang)] (b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sue of the products in question. 6.1 We find that the show cause notice dated 09.09.98 was issued for the period 14.09.93 to 31.03.97 i.e. entire demand raised is for the period before one year of the issue of show cause notice. Hence the total demand is covered under extended period as provided in the first proviso to Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. From the records, it is revealed that the goods in question manufactured by the Appellants are solely supplied to Voltas Ltd to their Airc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

example: 1.5 T RAC , 1.5 TON NEW SPLIT RAC , 1.5 TON RAC HI-TECH . From the said details given in the drawings submitted alongwith classification list, it can be known that the parts being manufactured by the appellant is meant for use in the manufacture of Air Conditioners. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority invoked the extended period only on the point that the department was not aware whether the products in question is for use in the manufacture of Air Conditioners, therefore there is suppressio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version