9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (10) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . None, for the Respondent. [Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. - The issue involved in this case is the demand of duty on goods which had been removed by the appellant under 57F(2) procedure. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of carburettor. They receive zinc as input and take Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs. They manufacture float chamber (FC) body and master chamber ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le. Therefore, the process does not amount to manufacture of goods. Shri Gupta also submits that the demand is time barred as the goods were cleared from the appellants' factory in 1988-89 while the show cause notice was issued only in July, 1991. The Audit has detected the non-return of the goods in 1989. 3. Countering the arguments Shri S. Nunthuk, learned JDR submitted that the demand of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered the submissions made by both the sides. We have also had the benefit of examining the sample produced by Shri Gupta during hearing. We find that the bodies in question are cast products. They are therefore, classifiable as cast products under the relevant tariff item. That they have undergone certain processes at the job workers' premises before they can be utilised in carburettor, does n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
