TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Customs, ICD, New Delhi imposing a duty in the sum of Rs. 42,89,75,196/- and a penalty of Rs. 30,19,92,183/- on the petitioner. 2.Briefly, the facts are that the petitioners are engaged in the manufacturer of colour television (CTV) sets under the 'SONY' brand name in their factory at Dharuhera in the State of Haryana. According to the petitioners, at the relevant time they imported various components for the manufacture of colour TVs. On arrival of the respective consignments, the petitioners filed bills of entry which were assessed by the Customs Authorities after due scrutiny and custom duty was paid accordingly on the components. The components so imported were used by the petitioners in the manufacture of CTVs in their factory. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal are : (a) Interpretation of Rule 2A of the Interpretative Rules. (b) Binding nature of the HSN Explanatory Notes and the effect of amendment in the Notes. (c) The nature of the circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. (d) Whether the show cause notice is hit by time limit. This is with reference to the plea that the show cause notice was issued beyond the prescribed period. (e) Whether there was any violation of provisions of the Exim Policy. (f) Whether the adjudication order is beyond the scope of the show cause notice. 5.Besides the above points noted by the Tribunal which, according to it, raised complex issues and are to be decided after full fled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rticular number of components were purchased, he would not supply. The minimum limit would vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. 7.It is interesting to note that the Tribunal has practically not given any reason for requiring the petitioners to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 20 crores. The relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal is reproduced as under : "We, prima facie, observe that it has not been disputed by the applicants that the colour T.V. sets were assembled out of the component parts imported by them and no component part was manufactured by them or purchased indigenously. They have, however, submitted that the components imported by them were further worked upon which has been denied by the Revenue according to which the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the Commissioner shows that the case set up by the department has been rejected. In view of this finding of the Commissioner, it will, prima facie, be difficult to accept that the components were complete CTVs. It may be noted here that the Commissioner gave his own different reason to uphold the show cause notice. That would give rise to two further questions : Could he set up a new case ? Second, was the reason correct ? The net result is that the validity of the show cause notice itself is doubtful. This in our view is a very material point raised by the petitioners which persuades us to order waiver of pre-deposit of any amount. 10.Next important point for consideration at this stage for finding out whether there is a prima facie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Counsel for the petitioners that when the process of manufacture was such it could not be said that the components constitute colour TV sets even by pressing in said Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules. Rule 2(a) refers to simple proceedings in assembly of final product like screw-driver operation. It does not apply in cases of complex or elaborate procedures like which is involved in the case in hand. Respondent No. 3 conceded in his order that the assembly operations undertaken by the petitioners out of the imported components for manufacturing CTVs are indeed complicated. In support of this, the petitioners added that they have been paying the excise duty on the CTVs manufactured by them. The Commissioner further observed in P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al facts amounting to fraud on the part of the petitioners. Otherwise the show cause notice itself will have to be held to be beyond time and, therefore, it will have to be quashed. In this behalf the learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that bill of entries with respect to each of the 94 consignments were submitted at the time of arrival of the goods. The goods were duly despatched as components of CTVs. While obtaining licence for imports of the components the petitioners had duly described the nature of the components. Even for obtaining a licence for opening the factory the petitioner had made it clear that for the first year of the manufacture, the components will have to be imported. In such facts a question would arise whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
