9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iginal No. 64/CE/CHD-1/09 dt. 06.11.2009 passed by the Commissioner Central Excise, Chandigarh, before the CESTAT, New Delhi. 3) The said assessee had a manufacturing unit at Paonta Sahib in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The period in dispute is 2004 to 2008. 4) M/s Khaitan Electricals Ltd. (for short 'KEL') had engaged the services of the assessee for making the stamping rotors, electrical grade aluminum metal and dies, which were then fabricated/cast, and machine rotors are prepared, which are then sent back by assessee to the principal manufacturer KEL. The Order of the Commissioner 5) The Commissioner in his Order-in-Original had taken a view that the assessee was manufacturing a new product, which has a distinct identity, name and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f semi-finished goods, which require further processing by KEL for being used as parts of fans, the same cannot be treated as marketable and excise duty would not be chargeable. 8) The Tribunal, therefore, remanded the matter to the Commissioner/Original Adjudicating Authority to decide this issue. 9) Incidentally, it also held that there was correspondence between the assessee and Department and also KEL as to whether the assessee was sending semi-finished/raw material to KEL and therefore, the longer period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A(1) would not be applicable, and consequently penalty under Section 11AC cannot be imposed. 10) It however observed that if on remand, there is a de-novo adjudication by the Commissioner on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enable to excise duty. But it felt that this aspect needs to be investigated afresh and so a remand was warranted. 16) This issue, as to whether the items being supplied by the assessee to KEL are fully finished goods or not, does not appear to have been specifically dealt with by the Commissioner in his order, which was challenged before the Tribunal. 17) We therefore do not find any error in the decision of the Tribunal in remitting the matter back to the Commissioner to examine this aspect. 18) We are also in agreement with the view of the Tribunal that the longer period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A(1) cannot be invoked nor can the department invoke penalty under Section 11AC, when there is a doubt as to whether the item ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
