2005 (3) TMI 631 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Revenue appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 1017 (P) dated 12-9-2003 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai regarding duty on Punches under Rule 57S.

The main issue in this case was whether the Punches removed by the respondents were covered under Rule 57S and if duty was demanded rightfully by the original authority due to non-compliance with the time limit for return. The ld. Advocate argued that Punches are covered in the definition of Dies and thus fall under Rule 57S(8). The Commissioner (Appeals) determined that the lamination tool, identified as Punch and Dies, was used for shaping strips according to the appellants' designs and specifications, hence falling under Rule 57S(8). The contention was raised that Rules only permit the removal of Dyes and Moulds, not Punches, even though both fall under Chapter 82.07 with distinct roles. However, the Consultant presented evidence from the World Book Encyclopedia stating that Dies, including Punches, are essential in various industrial processes like die casting, drawing, extrusion, forging, and stamping. The judgment emphasized that Punches are encompassed within the definition of Dies, and the Commissioner (Appeals) decision was legally sound, warranting no interference. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

In summary, the judgment revolved around the interpretation of Rule 57S regarding the removal of Punches by the respondents for job work. The key argument was whether Punches should be considered as part of Dies under the rule, despite the distinction between Punches and Dies in industrial processes. The decision underscored that Punches are integral components of Dies and fall within the ambit of Rule 57S(8), leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order.