9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (7) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation because in the first letter dated 4-4-1983 of the Superintendent it was stated that the Bare Aluminium Strips fall under Item 33(b) of the CET, but in the show cause notice the same are said to be falling under Item 27(b) of the CET is correct. There was confusion on the part of the local Central Excise Officers. Examination of the sample of a product exhibited in the course of hearing shown that the product in dispute is in the form of rectangular shape. It is in the form of a strip. Therefore, classifying the product under Item 27(b) of the CET is correct. However, the allegation that there was suppression of manufacture of Aluminium Strip at the intermediary stage of manufacturing double paper cover Aluminium Strips is not correct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n holding that there was no suppression of manufacture of aluminium strips inasmuch as the appellants had filed declaration in respect of DPC Aluminium Strips under Tariff Item 68 and that the assessee had not mentioned Bare Aluminium Strips in their declaration and as such the provision of Section 11A invoking longer period of five years were attracted. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that M/s. Dak Alloys are engaged in the manufacture of DPC Aluminium Strips; that for manufacture of the aluminium strips, the assessee has been purchasing aluminium wires/ rods. On 4-10-1983, the Central Excise staff visited the factory of the assessee and seized 50.1 kg DPC Aluminium Strips and 125 kgs. of defective DPC Aluminium Strips and al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Calcutta Steel Industries reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 175 had held : It is also to be borne in mind that the very nature of the mill was a criteria to decide the nature of the product manufactured ; that this clearly shows that the item manufactured by them was flattened wire and not a strip. 6. The learned Counsel submitted that the intermediate product termed as `Bare Wire Aluminium Strips by the department was a flattened wire rod; that this Tribunal in the case of Mitter Sain Industries reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T. 182 (T) had held : Flattened aluminium wire rods produced by redrawing through dies were not classifiable as strips when goods were not established by the department to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 20th March, 1984 and that the show cause notice has been issued extending the period beyond six months; that there was no suppression, misstatement etc. on the part of the assessee; that the declaration was filed at the begining of the manufacture in which the final product was shown as DPC Aluminium Strips; that the declaration was complete and there was nothing misstated or suppressed. The learned counsel therefore submitted that in view of the above submissions and the facts on record, the appeal of the assessee on the question of classification of Bare Aluminium Strips may be accepted holding that there was no manufacture of aluminium strips and as such the intermediate product was not classifiable under T.I. 27(b). 9. The learned C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uce their diameter. They were then passed through a wire flattening mill to obtain rectangular conductors and the conductors underwent the process of insulation; that the facts in the instant case are identical and therefore, this decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. 11. On the question of limitation, the ld. JDR submitted that the fact remains that the assessee in their letter No. DA/30/249/83, dated 24-06-1983 stated that they were manufacturing only DPC Aluminium Strips, at present under T.I. 68, no other product was manufactured by them; that this clearly shows that the assessee had failed to reveal the fact that they were manufacturing aluminium strips. Thus there was suppress ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luminium strips even though insulated fall within the manufacture of aluminium and shall be classifiable under T.I. 27(b). We also hold that the T.I. 68 speaks of goods which are not elsewhere specified in the Schedule is consequently inapplicable. 13A. On the question of limitation, we find that the Collector (Appeals) has referred to the letter dated 4-4-1983 issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise. On perusal of this letter, we find that the Superintendent has written You are a manufacturer of electrical cables and aluminium strips falling under Central Excise Tariff Item Nos. 33B and 68. The Collector in his grounds of appeal has stated that they did not mention `bare aluminium strips in their declaration. The question for dete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
