9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (2) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of the free clearances of Rs. 15 lacs during 1979-80 as per Notification 89/79, dated 1-3-1979, they had not accounted for the value of the transmission fittings cleared from their factory. The Assistant Collector passed orders on 30-12-1983 holding that in some case, 3rd parties had been manufacturing Cross Arms Strips exclusively on behalf of the appellants for use in the disc fittings. Similarly the hole was drilled for the bolt exclusively for the purpose of use in disc fitting. Under those circumstances, the Asstt. Collector held that the 11 K.V. Disc Fittings were classifiable under TI 68 of the First Schedule and that effective rate of duty would be 4% on clearances exceeding Rs. 15 lacs upto 30 lacs and 8% thereafter. The man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .95 by the Asstt. Collector confirming the orders of the Range Officer on the RT-12s Returns demanding duty for the period Dec., 79 to March, 80. The Collector (Appeals) in the order dated 2-12-1983 found in favour of the party. The department has filed this appeal. 5. As common questions of facts and law are involved in all the above cases, they were taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order. 6. The manufacturer is referred to as "appellant" for the purpose of convenience irrespective of their position in the array of parties in the other appeals. Sh. Harbans Singh, Advocate appeared for the appellants and submitted that the appellants were assembling bought out parts with the parts manufactured by them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bahalf of the assessee. When the benefit of Notification 179/77 was claimed, the department held that the components were manufactured with the aid of power. But the Govt. of India rejected the contention and held that "since no power was used by the assessee in the manufacture of finished goods, the assessee could not be denied the benefit of the Notification." 7. The learned counsel also pointed out that the goods had been cleared after the approval and hence the imposition of penalty was not justified. There was no clandestine removal and no penal action was called for when the classification was modified subsequently. He also urged that the Addl. Collector ought to have waited for the decision in the other appeals before passing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Ltd., Madras v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras). (c) 1987 (27) E.L.T. 315 (Tri), 1987 (10) ECR 233 (M/s. Neelam Tin Industries, Kanpur v. Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur). (d) 1986 (25) E.L.T. 609 (Bajrang Gopilal Gajabi v. M.N. Balkundri and Others). The SDR also urged that the terms" in or in relation to the manufacture" in the notification has a wide impart. Even if the appellants had not used power if in the manufacture of the components the 3rd party manufacturers had used power, then the benefit of the notification will not be available to the appellants. The notification does not specify that the power should be used only at the place of the manufacture. The SDR wanted to introduce the statement of the 3rd parties to i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants would not be entitled to the benefit of the notification. 12. In this connection, the decision reported in 1979 (4) E.L.T. 147 (cited supra) is directly on the points. A similar issue arose in that case and the Delhi High Court had categorically stated that one must confine ones attention to the activities of the manufacturer in whose hands the product was subjected to duty. In this case admittedly the appellants did not use power in the manufacture of the goods. The 3rd party manufacture of some components will not amount to manufacture by him. It, therefore, follows that if power had been used by the persons who sold these components to the appellants, then the benefit of the notification cannot be denied to the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have made these components parts for the use of the appellants. In order to find out whether the notification is applicable one has to strictly construe the words. We find the words "goods" "in or in relation to the manufacture of which no process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power". A close reading of these words show that it applies to a manufacturer who manufactures goods in which no process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power. In other words, the manufacture of the goods, the process in relation to the manufacture and the carrying on of any such operation with the aid of power should all be done for the same manufacture. In this case as the appellants have purchased merely the components from the 3rd parties on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
