Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2007 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (11) TMI 173 - AT - Central ExciseImported A.C. - said airconditioner was subsequently cleared under gate pass as a part of stamping, charging and pushing machinery - duty has been paid for the stamping, charging and pushing machine - OIO treats the airconditioner as a part of the finished goods viz, stamping, charging and pushing machinery on which the applicable rate of duty has been paid - demand of duty on the A.C. treating removal of the same as clearance of inputs as such is not justified penalty also set aside
Issues:
1. Multiplicity of proceedings and Show Cause Notices leading to differential duty demand. 2. Availment of Cenvat credit on Air Conditioner Units and removal of the same as "input as such." Analysis: 1. The judgment dealt with a case involving multiple Show Cause Notices and a factual report from the Jurisdictional Commissioner. The Commissioner highlighted various instances of differential duty demands due to classification disputes of parts and components versus machines. The Order-in-Original No. 24/Commr/05 dated 12-12-2005 set aside the proposed demand of duty for parts and components, classifying them as machines. However, a differential duty short paid on other grounds was confirmed. The issue of Cenvat credit on Air Conditioner Units also arose, with multiple Show Cause Notices issued. The Commissioner allowed the credit as admissible but confirmed a differential duty, leading to an appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 31-12-2003. 2. The appellants argued that the air conditioner, treated as part of stamping, charging, and pushing machinery, was classified correctly. They contended that the duty paid for the machinery should cover the air conditioner as an input for finished goods. The jurisdictional commissioner's order dated 12-12-2005 supported this classification. The appellants disputed the denial of credit on carbon copy/photo copy availed. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and the report from the Jurisdictional Commissioner, concluded that the duty demand on the air conditioner as clearance of inputs was unjustified. Consequently, the duty demand and penalty imposed were set aside, granting consequential benefits to the appellants. In conclusion, the judgment resolved the issues of differential duty demands and Cenvat credit on Air Conditioner Units by analyzing the classification of the air conditioner as part of the finished goods and the duty paid accordingly. The Tribunal overturned the duty demand and penalty, providing relief to the appellants based on the classification and payment of duty for the machinery in question.
|