TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rgone any process beyond proof-machining. There seems to have been no misdeclaration or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of law with intent to evade payment of duty on the part of the appellant. Validity of subsequent SCNs - HELD THAT:- The Excise Department considered the issue relating to the chargeability of the duty on the products manufactured by the Appellant on various occasions in the past i.e. when the Appellant surrendered the L-4 license on 26.12.1986 and also when the Appellant filed declarations on 16.4.1990. The issue of chargeability of the duty on the products manufactured by the Appellant was also examined by the Assistant Director, DGAE, Patna. The department also issued letters/Show Cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods were classifiable under Chapter 73 as per Notification No. 208/83-CE dated 1/8/1983, as amended. It is the case of the appellant that Castings of iron or steel, when made from the inputs specified in the said Notification, were exempt from the whole of the duty of Excise leviable thereon subject to the following conditions:- (i) Appropriate Excise Duty/additional duty of Customs under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 had already been paid on such inputs, and (ii) No credit of the duty paid on the inputs was taken under Rule 56A or Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Explanation to the said Notification specifically provided For the purpose of this notification, all stocks of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng with a compilation of relied upon decisions, circulars and notifications. 8. Ld. DR reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 9. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 10. We find that the appellant did not manufacture precision castings. The Castings manufactured by the Appellant were subjected to operations only upto the stage of Proof-machining. After coming into force of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, the Iron Castings were classifiable under heading No. 73.07. The Board vide its Circular No. 01/87. dated 18.2.1987 clarified that the Castings, which have undergone the process of removal of runners and risers, surface cleaning, grinding to remove excess material, annealing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... new Circular. The goods manufactured by the Appellant were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 208/83-C.E. dated 01.08.1983 upto 28.2.1988, Notification No. 90/88-C.E. dated 1.3.1988 upto 20.5.1988; Notification No. 202/88-C.E. dated 20.5.1988 upto 4.11.1988 and Notification No. 275/88-C.E. dated 4.11.1988 from this date onwards. In so far as the Cast articles of Brass falling under Tariff heading No. 7410.00 are concerned, the Appellant manufactured the said goods from copper/brass scrap purchased from the open market and the same were exempt under Notification No. 149/86-C.E. dated 1.3.1986. As regards the Mould Pattern falling under heading No.8480.00, the same were used by the Appellant within its fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Iron Castings particularly as to whether such Castings would be classified under Chapter 73 or as semifinished parts of the machinery under Chapter 84, which was settled only by the Tribunal decision in the case of Shivaji Works Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. (Supra). The Board, which had earlier issued Circular dated 30.06.1989 clarifying that Castings should be regarded as semi-finished Machine Parts also withdrew the said Circular and accepted the Tribunal decision in the aforesaid case. The Assistant Director, DGAE, Patna required the Appellant to submit all the relevant records for the period from March, 1986 to February, 1990, which were duly produced by the Appellant on 4.5.1990. However, after necessary examination of the record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
