9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They hold Central Excise Registration Certificate 4/95. Revenue proceeded against the appellant on the ground that they Ito discharge Central Excise duty liability on the product manufactured by them. They were also undertaking job work. It was alleged that they did not include the cost of raw materials in the job work charges and suppressed the value as a result they were not entitled for the benefit of Central Excise Notification The Adjudicating Authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 1,64,643/- for the period from 1-4-1992 to 31-3-1995 and Rs. 1,19,700/- for the period from 1-4-1995 to 19- 12-1996. Besides the duty, penalty of Rs. 15,000/- has been imposed in respect OIA No. 127/2004, dated 14-10-2004 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PE/Polypropylene, PV Plain rolls or such other material of plastic falling under Chapter Sub-heading No. 39.17 or 39.20 of the Central Excise Tariff. It is state that the raw material subjected to printing and returned to the raw material supplier in the same form. The final product derived out of such activity of the appellant is clearly a product of printing industry. The learned Advocate stated that the essential character of base material supplied is the material for packaging and printing and that does not change its original character and it retains its identity. He relied on the following case laws: (i) Supreme Industries Ltd. v. CC & CE, Surat-II - 2004 (166) E.L.T. 174(T).. (ii) Fitrite Packers v: C.C.E., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nitio void and therefore, the consequential orders are in fructuous and hence, they are liable to be quashed. Further, the above show cause notices have been issued for extended period without invoking proviso to Section 11A and no suppression has been alleged. Further for the same reasons, for a different period, invoking proviso to Section 11A in third show cause notice dated 2-10-97 is illogical. Invoking proviso to Section 11A in the third show cause notice is not admissible.Hence, the third show cause notice is clearly hit by time bar and therefore, the same is ab initio void and thereby, the consequential orders are infructuous and hence, they are liable to be quashed. It was urged that the appellants are holders of Central Excise reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s), in terms of the proviso to Section 11A only Commissioner of Central Excise is empowered to issue show cause notice and not the Range Superintendent and the demand raised for payment of duty is hit by limitation." The above is the contention of the appellant. Though this has been recorded in the impugned order, the same has not been examined by the Commissioner (A).The commissioner (A) ought to have given the finding on this point. We do not find any finding therefore, this point has to be examined with reference to the show cause notice issued and also the legal position during that time. A clear finding has to be given on this. Therefore, we have no other option but to set aside the Order-in-Appeal No. 152/2004 for de novo examination ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,64,812 Total Within the exemption limit 21,81,159 29,00,817 21,05,813 Difference : Not explained in the SCN reported to be falling under CSH 3293.90 4,71,554 8,05,338 10,10,348 • The above information was supplied by the learned advocate in the course of the hearing before the Tribunal. However, in the impugned order No. 127/20 which confirmed Order-in-Original No. 27/1998 dated 13-10-98, the computation has been given by the original authority in the following manner 1992-93 1993-94 & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ghly examined. In view of these things, the Order-in-Appeal No. 127/1004, dated 14-10-2004 is also liable to be set aside. Therefore, this order is also remanded to Commissioner (A) for giving a clear finding on the entitlement of various deductions as claimed by the appellant. While passing these orders, we hold that mere printing does not amount to manufacture. Therefore in all cases, where charges are collected for mere printing, the same should not be included in the total turnover. It is also further seen that the Additional Commissioner as Original Authority has allowed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 14/92 for the year 92-93, 93-94, and 94-95. However, the same has not been allowed for the year 95-96 to 96-97, so this point ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
