2001 (4) TMI 162 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of duty on stators and rotors manufactured and cleared without payment of duty.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice regarding non-supply of invoices.
3. Whether the processes undertaken by the appellants amount to the manufacture of complete rotors and stators.
4. Appellants' failure to inform the Department about the clearance of stators and rotors.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The Commissioner confirmed the demand of duty on stators and rotors manufactured and cleared without payment of duty by the appellants during a specific period. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication after the appellants' contention of non-supply of invoices forming the basis of the demand was not rebutted by the Revenue. The Commissioner, in the remand proceedings, confirmed the demand of duty and imposed a penalty based on the invoices produced by the appellants during the personal hearing.

Issue 2:
The appellants argued that there was a specific direction by the Tribunal to supply copies of the invoices, which the adjudicating authority failed to comply with, leading to a miscarriage of justice. However, the Tribunal found that the non-supply of original invoices did not invalidate the impugned order as copies were available with the appellants. The appellants admitted that no records were obtained by any central excise officer and failed to demonstrate whether their own invoices were detained by the Revenue.

Issue 3:
Regarding whether the processes undertaken by the appellants amounted to the manufacture of complete rotors and stators, it was observed that the processes involved in winding, end cutting, coil setting, core processing, and providing aluminum coating resulted in the emergence of a new product distinct from the raw materials received. The appellants' failure to show additional processes required for the completion of rotors and stators led to the affirmation that they were indeed engaged in manufacturing and clearing these products without duty payment.

Issue 4:
The appellants were found to have cleared stators and rotors without informing the Department, failing to provide classification or price lists, and not reflecting the removal of these items in statutory records. Their lack of evidence to support a bona fide belief that these goods were not excisable, coupled with their awareness as manufacturers of electric fans, justified the invocation of the longer period of limitation by the adjudicating authority.

In conclusion, the appeal was rejected as the Tribunal found no merit in the appellants' arguments, upholding the demand of duty and penalty imposed by the Commissioner.