TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssential character and they should be incomplete or unfinished and if any process is undertaken to make them complete and finished than such process amounts to manufacture - In the present SCN, which components are having essential characters and in which aspect they are incomplete or unfinished and which activities were undertaken to make them complete and finished are totally absent. Therefore, we do not find that the facts of the case justify invocation of provision of said Section Note 6 to Section XVI of Tariff Act, 1985 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/975-977/2009-EX-[DB] - A/70759-70761/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 31-7-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents and further investigations appellant M/s Xerox were issued the show cause notice dated 18.04.2007. It was state in the said show cause notice that the appellant were importing various parts, components and machines and after their import and clearances of the same, in the system, a process called Kitting was undertaken. During the process of kitting various sub assemblies were grouped into a kit and the kit also including certain components which were procured indigenously. Further during the process of Kitting the identification given to individual sub assemblies were withdrawn and entire kit was assigned one identification number at the end of the process of kitting and such kits were dispatch to the customers under invoices. It appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;X-Mart' and they were cleared on invoices without payment of Central Excise Duty. It was alleged in the said show cause notice that the said process amounted to manufacture. There was a duty demand of ₹ 37,27,374/- on such refurbishing activity. The demand on the other activity which was alleged to be manufacture in the terms of said Section Note 6 was ₹ 14,87,79,895/-. Through the said show cause notice the said demands were raised under proviso Sub-Section 1 of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1947. Further, the other two appellants i.e. Shri A.K. Srivastava and Shri S.K. Gupta were called upon to show cause as to why penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules. 2002 should not be imposed on them. The show cause n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uding blanks and that in view of their submission of facts and provisions of said Rule 2(a) providing classification of the goods under the same heading even if presented unassembled or disassembled suggested that no manufacture has taken place. They further contended that they had only undertaken installation at the site and their activity did not amount to manufacture. They also contended that in respect of activity at Jolly Godown that total inventory value which came during the period of show cause from the factory of new parts to repair the X-Mart machines at the godown worked out to ₹ 39.13 lakhs for 1359 machines which per machines worked out to ₹ 2,890/- and the total price fetched for such 1359 machines was ₹ 2,70 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abad and similar show cause notice on the issue of manufacture covered by said Section Note 6 was issued to them by Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad and the same was decided by Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad which was challenged before Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Bangalore and Coordinate Bench at Bangalore found the said Order-in-Original passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad as untenable in law. Having considered the submission, Hon ble High Court of Allahabad in their order dated 25.07.2011 in Central Excise Appeal No.34 of 2011 directed this Tribunal by setting aside the said Final Order dated 30.11.2010 to decide the issue whether the aforesaid activities amounted to manufacture and if this Ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at 2017 (345) ELT 638 (Allahabad). He has submitted that in the case of Metro Appliance Ltd. defective fans were dismantled and parts thereof were stored separately and useful parts were reused for repair of fans and Hon ble Allahabad High Court has held that such activity did not amount to manufacture and submitted that the case law is squarely applicable in respect of refurbishing activity at Jolly Godown in the present case. 6. Heard the learned AR who has supported the impugned Order-in-Original. 7. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of records, we find that the allegations in the show cause notice are on two grounds, one is that various components which were treated as complete goods classifiable under Hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
