Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Pune-III

2017 (10) TMI 1183 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Manufacture - the appellant had imported various parts of motor vehicle. The said parts were subjected to process of packing repacking in unit container, labelling/ relabeling and affixing the brand name along with MRP on the product before clearing to their dealers/ customers - case of the department is that the said activity carried out by appellant is covered under third schedule to Central Excise Act and also amounts to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act 1944 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ny other treatment on the goods to render the product marketable to the consumer amounts to manufacture. In the facts of the present case, the goods as discussed above are falling under various chapter heading as proposed in the show-cause notice are covered under third schedule and the activity which is undisputedly carried out by the appellants are packing in unit container, labelling with declaration of the MRP on the unit container are clearly covered under Section 2(f)(iii) therefore amount .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the activity of packing, repacking, declaration of MRP thereon was not known to the department which alone is the basis for making the product excisable. Therefore the activity of manufacture was not disclosed to the department by the appellant - extended period rightly invoked. - As regards the issue of confiscation of the goods, it is found that the confiscation was made in respect of the goods which had already been cleared and the same was not available. No seizure of such goods were ma .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hicle. The said parts were subjected to process of packing repacking in unit container, labelling/ relabeling and affixing the brand name along with MRP on the product before clearing to their dealers/ customers. The case of the department is that the said activity carried out by appellant is covered under third schedule to Central Excise Act and also amounts to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act 1944 with effect from 01.03.2003. It was revealed that the appellan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ation, demand of duty proposed in the show-cause notice along with interest penalty and Redemption Fine was confirmed. Therefore, appellant is before us. 2. Shri Gajendra Jain, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that imported parts were packed and sold as spare parts of the motor vehicle. Therefore the correct classification of all such parts is under 87.08. The chapter 87.08 is not falling under the third schedule of the Central Excise Act. Therefore the legal fiction of m .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

parts, availment of cenvat credit and transfer of such goods to Spare parts Division on payment of duty was very much known to the department, therefore there was no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. Accordingly, the invocation of longer period for demanding duty is not maintainable. He further submits that the appellant had paid the entire duty along with interest before issuance of show-cause notice, therefore the case of the appellant is covered by Section 11A(2B), hence no p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ordered in absence of such goods, therefore consequently Redemption Fine was not warranted. A similar view was taken in the case of CCE Vs. Finesse Creations Inc. - 2009 (248) ELT 122. As regards import of goods he placed reliance on the following judgment:- G.S. Auto International Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2003 (152) ELT 3 (SC) Cast Industries (P) Ltd. - 2015 (325) ELT 471 (SC) CC Vs. G.E.Lighting India Pvt. Ltd. - 2007 (207) ELT 530 (T) Affirmed by Supreme Court in the case reported at 2007 (213) ELT A49 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oner (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He further submits that the submission of the ld. Counsel that their goods are classifiable under 8708 is incorrect on the face of record that the goods were imported and cleared under bill of entry wherein the classification has been decided finally. The adjudicating authority followed the same classification. Secondly, when the imported goods as such were only packed, labelled and affixed with the MRP th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

4. 5. We have carefully considered the submission made by both sides. 6. We find that the adjudicating authority as regards classification of the goods under Central Excise followed the classification of the imported goods in the bill of entry. Therefore the same cannot be disputed. We also observed that Interpretative Rules and note 2(a) of Section XVI of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 for the goods covered under Chapter 85 provided that even though goods are used as a part but the same should .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssifiable under the specific tariff entry of the product in respective chapter heading. Therefore, the submission of the ld. Counsel that all the items which were cleared as spare parts should be classified as parts of motor vehicles under 8708 is not acceptable on the facts as well as on law point. Therefore, we hold that the goods repacked and sold as spare parts is not classifiable under 8708 but it is correctly classified under respective chapter heading as held by the adjudicating authority .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng to manufacture; or (iii) which, in relation to the goods specified in the Third Schedule, involves packing or repacking of such goods in a unit container or labeling or re-labelling of containers including the declaration or alteration of retail sale price on it or adoption of any other treatment on the goods to render the product marketable to the consumer, and the word "manufacturer" shall be construed accordingly and shall include not only a person who employs hired labour in the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

le to the consumer amounts to manufacture. In the facts of the present case, the goods as discussed above are falling under various chapter heading as proposed in the show-cause notice are covered under third schedule and the activity which is undisputedly carried out by the appellants are packing in unit container, labelling with declaration of the MRP on the unit container are clearly covered under Section 2(f)(iii) therefore amounting to manufacture. In this undisputed fact the appellant was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version