9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 624X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Shri S.C. Kamra Advocate for the Appellant Rep. by Shri G.R. Singh, DR for the respondent Per. B.Ravichandran: These two appeals are taken up together as they deal with similar issue of the same appellant and outcome of the same investigation conducted by the Department 2. The brief facts of the case are that based on the certain intelligence, the officers of central excise conducted certa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 42 52,863/- and imposed equal amount of penalty on the appellant. It was held that the appellants are liable to central excise duty on assembled components of C0 cassettes. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that they were receiving various components of audio cassettes like shell/plastic cover engraved with brand name, plastic rollers, pressure pad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontended that the, appellants are only job workers and the valuation adopted is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ujjagar Prints. 4. Ld. AR defended the orders of the lower authority and reiterated the findings. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 6. The main point for decision is that the appellant's liability to central exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal). In the said case, the Tribunal relying on the earlier decision in British Physical Laboratories (India) Ltd. - 1990 (50) ELT 567 (Tribunal) held that assembly of video cassettes with magnetic tapes will not amount to manufacture. In the present case also. we find that the various components received by the appellants were assembled by them manually assembly, the end product does not become ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amination. We find in view of the position about the non-tax liability of the appellant, there is no need to go into detail about other aspects of the case. 7. In view of the above discussion, we also find that the impugned order dated 19.02.2008 is not sustainable and accordingly, the same is set aside. As the duty demand against the appellant is held to be not sustainable, the proceedings with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
