TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set aside orders of both the lower authorities, on the ground that their orders as regards penalty had been passed without application of mind. In the remand proceedings the lower authorities have taken the remand order as disposal of the appeal on merits and that the remand was only for the purpose of deciding the penalties supported by proper finding. Accordingly, the order of the original authority as well as the impugned order deal with only the penal liability of the appellants. The initial order passed by the Joint Commissioner had confirmed the allegation that the appellants had engaged in manufacture and clearance of excisable goods without following the Central Excise formalities. It was found that during the period 04/93 to 12/93 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ealt in paddle wheel aerators, water purifiers, water softeners and iron removers manufactured by others. They had, barring on a few occasions, received the items in fully assembled condition. On stray occasions they had received the impugned goods in disassembled condition for convenience of transport. This position had been testified by one of the suppliers who had been cross-examined before the original authority. The depositions on record did not support a finding of manufacture arrived at by the lower authority. 3. The ld. SDR reiterates the findings contained in the impugned order. 4. I have carefully considered the case records and submissions by both sides. From the Final Order No. 780/02 dated 11-7-02, I find that the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal in the first round, the Joint Commissioner had found the appellants' claim that the job workers had supplied the impugned goods in a semi assembled condition/dismantled condition for assembling to be contrary to facts as the Goods Receipt Notes maintained by the appellants had shown that they had received only the components. The appellants had assembled and tested the impugned goods before clearance. The appellants had received incomplete/unfinished goods with essential character of the complete article. The assessee had converted them into complete/finished articles. Note 6 of Section XVI of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, prescribed that in respect of goods covered by Section XVI, conversion of an article with the essential ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
