TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e products which are manufactured by the appellant from raw material/ blanks can be termed as finished product which needs only further processing. Therefore, on merits section Note 6 to Section XVI of the Central Excise Tariff Act will directly apply. Revenue raised demand by issuing two different show-cause notices. Show-cause notice dated 28.05.1992 is issued for the period 10.12.1991 to 14.01.1992. It is found that this show-cause notice is within the period of limitation and demands as raised in the said show-cause notice are correctly held to be payable by the appellant and we do not see any reason for interfering with such an order. As regards show-cause notice dated 29.09.1993, it is found that this show-cause notice is issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eth cutting on machined blanks sent by the customer which are returned to them after above operation and the items like gears, pinions, housing etc. were cleared in crude form and major operation like heat treatment, slotting, broading, grinding, lapping etc. were carried out by the customers and were cleared as finished article. 3. It is the case of the appellant that the crude items processed by them out of the blanks could not be treated as marketable product and as held by the Tribunal in their own case vide its order dated 19.10.1984 that the process on blank are not marketable hence, duty liability does not arise. While it is the case of the Revenue that subsequent introduction of new Central Excise Tariff Act 1985, Note 6 to Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant. 5. Ld. Departmental Representative would draw our attention to the facts of the case and also to Section Note 6 to Section XVI and submit that these products though they are semi-finished or unfinished have attained the status of final product and hence the duty liability arises on the appellant. He would submit that the demand was correctly calculated for the entire period as there was a suppression of the material facts. 6. We have considered the submission at length and perused the records. 7. During the proceedings which took place on 09.08.2016 we had directed the counsel to produce the products which arises and on which the demand of duty was raised. Ld. counsel produced the said samples on 10.08.2016. On cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1992. the show-cause notice, we find, is within the period of limitation and demands as raised in the said show-cause notice are correctly held to be payable by the appellant and we do not see any reason for interfering with such an order. 9. As regards show-cause notice dated 29.09.1993, we find that this show-cause notice is issued by invoking the extended period of time and demand is for March 1989 to November 1991. In our considered view, this demand which has been worked out by invoking the extended period is unsustainable, inasmuch prior to 1986 when new tariff was introduced, Tribunal had held that the products which are manufactured by the appellant from the same blanks and the machinery used are non-excisable could have created ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
