9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the cylinder block piston assembly (CBPA) is a product separately known and identifiable from its components. Analysis: The case involved the appellants, a company manufacturing motor vehicles and parts, who assembled cylinder block piston assemblies (CBPA) by combining bought-out items with duty-paid cylinder blocks. The issue was whether CBPA was a distinct excisable product. The Commissioner held that CBPA was a specifically identifiable product and confirmed duty payment and penalties. The single issue for determination was whether CBPA was separately known and identifiable. The Commissioner's finding and show cause notice asserted this, but lacked evidence from traders or engineers. The appellants failed to provide evidence to support this claim. The Tribunal examined statements from the company's General Manager, Shivaramakrishnan, which did not conclusively support the Commissioner's belief. The Tribunal observed that the assembly did not constitute a sub-assembly without the piston, indicating it was not a distinct entity. The company's denial of CBPA as a new commercial product further weakened the Commissioner's stance. The Commissioner relied on a Supreme Court judgment regarding assembly constituting manufacture, but the Tribunal found the facts distinguishable. The Tribunal also referenced other judgments where assembly did not amount to manufacturing, emphasizing the need for assembled components to perform a different function to qualify as manufacture. The demonstration before the Tribunal showed that without the piston, the assembly would not function differently, leading to the conclusion that the activity did not amount to manufacture. Consequently, the appeal succeeded, and the impugned order was set aside, relieving the appellants from further duty payment.
|
