9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yatullah, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shailaja Kher & Shri M.P. Joshi appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the show-cause notice was very vague as no reason was given for the goods manufactured and cleared by the appellants are not machinery but it is a part. Therefore without any basis the show-cause notice is not sustainable. He further submitted that the penalty was imposed under Section 173Q. No sub-clause was mentioned either in the show-cause notice or in the operative part of the order. Therefore in the absence of sub-clause it is not coming out that what contravention has been committed. He placed reliance in the case of Amrit Foods 2005 (190) ELT 433 (SC). He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Tribunal in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies, we find that Rule VII of Explanatory Notes with regard to Rule 2(a) is very clear which says that for the purpose of the Rule articles presented unassembled or disassembled means the articles the components of which are to be assembled either by simple fixing devices (screws, nuts, bolts etc.) or by riveting or welding provided only simple assembly operations are involved. Evidently, in the present case the process of assembly was not simple assembly operations of fixing screws, nuts etc. but a complex process requiring engineering skills. Further, Explanatory Notes V with regard to Rule 2(a) of Rules of Interpretation in respect of classification of articles presented unassembled or disassembled provides that complete or finished arti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in complete of finished form unassembled or disassembled. In view of these, the Tribunal s decisions cited by Shri Hidaytulah are clearly distinguishable. Besides, Explanatory Notes VII is very clear and the goods cannot be considered as articles presented unassembled or disassembled. 17. In view of above, we uphold the order of the Commissioner (Adj) so far it relates to classification of the goods as parts and hold that the impugned goods will not be entitled to exemption under Sr. No. 14 of Notification No. 56/95 dated 16.3.1995 and accordingly, we reject the appeal filed by M/s Godrej Boyce. " In view of the above order, the merit of the case was decided against the appellant, therefore demand of duty and interest thereon is sust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
