2001 (6) TMI 268 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Transfer of appeal from Chennai Bench to Delhi and then to Bangalore Bench.
2. Allegations of misuse of Notification No. 72/86 by supplying parts of alarm time pieces.
3. Confirmation of demand and imposition of penalty by the Commissioner.
4. Dispute regarding the classification of goods as fully assembled alarm clocks or kits for assembly.
5. Interpretation of Notification No. 72/86 regarding duty classification for one day alarm time pieces in kit form.

Transfer of Appeal:
The appeal, initially before the Chennai Bench, was transferred to Delhi and then to Bangalore Bench upon the appellant's request. The President ordered the final transfer to Bangalore, where it was heard.

Misuse of Notification No. 72/86:
A show cause notice alleged that the appellant evaded duty by supplying parts of alarm time pieces as fully assembled pieces. The Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty based on these allegations.

Confirmation of Demand and Penalty:
After hearing both parties, the Commissioner confirmed the demand of Rs. 3,04,514/- and imposed a composite penalty under various rules, leading to the present appeal against this order.

Classification of Goods:
The dispute revolved around whether the goods removed were fully assembled alarm clocks or kits for assembly. The appellant argued that supplying kits for assembly should be considered as supplying fully manufactured alarm clocks, citing relevant legal precedents.

Interpretation of Notification No. 72/86:
The notification had two entries, and the determination of whether one day alarm time pieces in kit form fell under a specific entry was crucial. The order needed to be remanded for adjudication on this matter, as the duty classification for kits differed from fully assembled clocks.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found discrepancies in the classification of goods and the interpretation of the notification, leading to the appeal being allowed and remanded for a fresh adjudication to resolve these issues effectively. Other matters were left open for consideration during the remand process.