9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (5) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and on the orders of the customers were supplied separately and invoiced separately. The Revenue had alleged by issuing six separate show cause notices for different periods that the cost of GI Pins should be taken into account for determining duty liability of the insulators. The period involved in these six notices is from 1975 to 30-4-1983. Prior to 1-4-1979, the insulators were classifiable under Item No. 23B of the Central Excise Tariff and with effect from 1-4-1979 by virtue of insertion of Explanation II under Entry No. 23B they became classifiable under Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Assistant Collector who had adjudicated all the six show cause notices by a consolidated order dated 28-8-1984 had held that GI Pins wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sulators. On limitation, he referred to the law of limitation as applicable during the period under consideration and submitted that as in respect of the show cause notices dated 29-9-1981, 25-3-1982 and also partly show cause notice dated 21-5-1982 while the extended period of limitation had been invoked, there was no allegation of suppression or clandestine removal in the notices and therefore, there was no justification for determining duty for the larger period. For the rest of the show cause notices also, he submitted that as on merits the value of the GI Pin was not includible. These notices also merited to be vacated. 5. In reply, Shri G.D. Sharma, the learned JDR stated that the goods supplied were Pin insulators and that the insu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the Excise Department. 8. GI Pins were also classifiable under Item No. 68 and even otherwise when such goods under Item No. 68 are used in the manufacture of finished Item No. 68 goods, input duty relief was available. 9. The learned Advocate had referred to the Tribunal s decision in the case of Eureka Forbes Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1996 (85) E.L.T. 334 (Tribunal) = 1996 (13) RLT 426 (Tribunal). He had also referred to another Tribunal s decision in the case of Diamond Clock v. Collector of Customs - 1988 (34) E.L.T. 662 (Tribunal) which had been confirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court as reported at 1989 (44) E.L.T. A24. Although, we find that the facts in those cases are not completely identical, they go to show that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
