9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the activity undertaken by the respondents amounts to "manufacture" as per Notification No. 13/81. 2. Whether the longer period of limitation u/s 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 is applicable. Issue 1: Definition of Manufacture The respondents, a 100% EOU, imported Analogue Masters to Korea for conversion into digital Compact Discs, which were then re-imported along with Compact Disc boxes and trays. They availed the benefit of Notification No. 13/81 for these imports. The adjudicating authority concluded that the definition of "manufacture" in Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act does not apply to the term "manufacture" in Notification No. 13/81. Instead, the broader definition in Rule 12, which includes processes like blending and alterations, was considered. The Board of Approval, which included a representative from the Department of Revenue, approved the respondents' activities as manufacturing. The Tribunal agreed with this broader interpretation, emphasizing the Notification's objective to promote exports and earn foreign exchange. Issue 2: Applicability of Longer Period of Limitation A show cause notice was issued to the respondents proposing to demand duty on the grounds that their activities did not constitute manufacturing. The Commissioner of Customs dropped the proceedings, noting no suppression of facts by the respondents. The Tribunal upheld this finding, stating that the respondents had fully disclosed their activities to the authorities, including the Customs officers who frequently visited their EOU. Consequently, the longer period of limitation u/s 28 of the Customs Act was not applicable. Conclusion The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the respondents' activities qualified as "manufacture" under Notification No. 13/81 and that there was no suppression of facts warranting the invocation of the longer limitation period.
|
