9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 866X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are that the appellant were engaged in the manufacture of Auto parts/components falling under Chapter 87 of schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were issued with a show cause notice dated 04.04.2001 wherein it was alleged that appellant were supplying car air conditioner on the basis of same statements recorded. The appellant were called upon to show cause as to why excise duty amounting to Rs. 4,45,97,692/- should not be demanded for clearance of various assemblies/units of car air conditioner declared/shown as parts which in fact were not the parts but assemblies of various parts when presented together acquired the essential character of an air conditioning system during the period from 01.03.2000 to 28.02.2001 under proviso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rwise it will be classified as parts. The show cause notices dated 20.03.2002 and 05.07.2002 were adjudicated through Order-in-Original dated 30.08.2002 wherein similar demand was challenged before this Tribunal and in similar manner same was remanded back to Original Authority with similar directions through Final Order No.A/729-732/2003 dated 14.11.2003. In compliance to remand directions and Final Orders dated 14.10.2003 and 14.11.2003 the Original Authority passed impugned Order-in-Original dated 05.02.2014. While passing the impugned Order-in-Original, he has also decided similar show cause notice dated 31.01.2003. Through the said Order-in-Original dated 05.02.2014 the Original Authority has confirmed the demands of Rs. 4,45,97,642/-, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inlet and condenser were not manufactured in the factory but they were supplied independently and, therefore, what was cleared from the manufacturing unit was not air conditioner pin disassembled or unassembled condition but what were cleared were parts of air conditioner. He has further taken us to page 77 of the said Order-in-Original wherein the Original Authority has given his finding stating that it is further evident that the DASL (appellant) have purposely confused the department regarding the supplies that were conducted from their factory and the trading warehouse. He contended that it clearly means that Revenue did not have clarity about the goods being manufactured and traded and, therefore, it is clear that the show cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
