2001 (4) TMI 162

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y hold a valid licence. The appellants were also undertaking the job work for manufacture of rotors and stators for other fan manufacturers. For the said purpose they received raw materials such as lamination, winding wire etc. from their respective customers and did the processing work like winding, end cutting, coil setting etc. Based upon the scrutiny of the appellants' records, Revenue issued a show cause notice on 7-2-1985 to the appellants demanding duty on the rotors and stators falling under Erstwhile Tariff Item 30D of Central Excise Tariff. The said show cause notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner confirming demand of duty and imposing penalty upon the appellants. The order so passed by the Commissioner was challenged by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g authority. As such there has been a gross mis-carriage of justice. He further submits that the adjudicating authority has wrongly concluded that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of stators and rotors. In fact the processes undertaken by them on job work basis did not result into emergence of finished stators and rotors and the same were in unfinished forms, unfit for marketing. As such it cannot be said that the appellants had manufactured the said product and has cleared the same without payment of duty. The impugned order has also been assailed on the point of limitation. 5.Countering the arguments Shri A.K. Chattopadhyay, ld. JDR draws our attention to the reasoning of the adjudicating authority. He submits that the appel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng central excise officer. They could also not show as to whether the appellants' own invoices were detained by the Revenue. In fact we find that a reference has been made to the copies of the invoices produced at the time of personal hearing. In these circumstances, we hold that the non-supply of the original invoices, copies of which are in any case available with the appellants, has not invalidated the impugned order. 7.As regards the appellants' contention that the activities undertaken by them does not result in manufacture of complete rotors and stators, we find that rotors and stators are specified items under the Erstwhile Tariff Item 30D of Central Excise Tariff. The appellants have received laminations and finding wires from thei .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X