2017 (1) TMI 919 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacture - import of various parts/ modules/ accessories of digital multi functional printers, copiers and photocopiers cum printers of different models - Some of these machines were also imported by M/s XIL in Semi Knocked Down (SKD) condition and incomplete machine also and were assembled - whether the assemble of these parts amount to manufacture? - appeal filed to Allahabad High Court and the matter was remanded back to Tribunal. Held that - the order passed by the Hon ble Allahabad High Court has been challenged by the department before the Hon ble Supreme Court in Special Appeal No. 6895-97/2012 the same was tagged with another Civil Appeal No.19252/2011, of the assessee pertaining to Hyderabad Branch. Thus, on the issue, the matter is sub-judice before the Hon ble Supreme Court. When it is so, then liberty is granted to the appellant to come again after having final verdict from Hon ble Supreme Court, within the prescribe time, if advised so. Appeal disposed off - matter on remand.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against Order-in-Original, Classification of imported goods, Allegation of manufacturing activity without duty payment, Contrary opinions by different Tribunals, Reference to Larger Bench, Sub-judice matter before Supreme Court.

Appeal against Order-in-Original: The appeal was filed against Order-in-Original No.57/2008 C.Ex. dated 28.11.2008, covering the period from April 2002 to November 2006. The appellants imported digital printers, copiers, and photocopiers-cum-printers from various units of a corporation located worldwide. The goods were either imported as a whole consignment or in split packing. After import, the machines were sold and installed outside the jurisdiction of Meerut-II Commissionerate, as per specific customer requirements.

Classification of imported goods: The Commissioner observed that the imported parts were assembled into complete machines by the appellant, constituting manufacturing activity. However, no duty was paid on these activities as they were considered trading of goods. The Tribunal had earlier decided against the appellant, leading to the filing of the present appeal.

Contrary opinions by different Tribunals and Reference to Larger Bench: The Allahabad High Court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal due to conflicting opinions expressed by different Tribunals on the same facts and evidence. The High Court emphasized the importance of institutional integrity and consistency in judgments to avoid confusion and adverse effects on business and trade. Citing legal precedents, the High Court directed the Tribunal to decide the matter in accordance with law and refer it to a Larger Bench if necessary.

Sub-judice matter before Supreme Court: The department challenged the High Court's order before the Supreme Court, with the matter being sub-judice. The appellant was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal again after obtaining the final verdict from the Supreme Court, if advised to do so. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of with the mentioned liberty.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the background of the case, the legal arguments presented, and the subsequent directions given by the Tribunals and Courts involved.