9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,47,500.00 Rs. 6,47,500.00 Rs. Shri Maharaj Kar, Managing Director (ii) Penalty : Rs. 25,00,000.00 2. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, ld. Advocate, submitted that Appellants Company manufacture Turbine for Hydro Electric equipment below 15 M.W.; that they manufacture various sub-assemblies in their factory, a few sub-assemblies are purchased from outside and supplied directly to the site of the Customer; that at the site, these sub-assemblies are used in making the complete Hydro Turbines; that prior to 16-3-1995 they were paying duty on goods cleared by them from their factory under Heading No. 84.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act if these were cleared for being assembled at site, under Heading ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 37 B order No. 4/92, dated 19-5-1992 clarified, in respect of Sl. No. 15 of the Notification pertaining to Agricultural and Municipal waste conversion devices producing energy, that benefit of exemption would also be available in cases where the manufacturers manufacture various sub-assemblies in their factory, purchase some standard items from outside vendors and dispatch them directly to the site of the Customer and fabricate some other items at the premises of sub-contractors and despatch them directly to site or fabricate such items at the site itself; that the exemption was available provided the evidence is produced that goods cleared form part of a complete device and the evidence is also produced for supply of such a device ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered the duty element and the amount of Modvat credit available to them in respect of bought out item would have been more than the duty payable by them. Regarding financial hardship, the ld. Counsel submitted that as per unaudited provisional Balance Sheet as on 31-3-1999, they had suffered a loss of Rs. 1 crore. 4. Shri M.C. Sharma, ld. CDR, submitted that prior to amendment of Notification No. 205/88, the Appellants were clearing the goods as part of Turbines under Heading 84.10; that after amendment of Notification, the said Heading was divided into two sub-headings 8410.10. All goods other than parts and 8410.90 parts; that the Appellants started, treating parts as Turbine itself and in brackets, they would mention parts; that even a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses; that no evidence has been brought on record to show that all parts were cleared by them from the factory during the relevant period or to show that all parts cleared by them were sufficient to make a Turbine. Regarding financial condition of the Appellant Company, the ld. CDR mentioned that they have considerable amount available in cash and Bank balances and have reserves and as such payment of duty and penalty would not cause financial hardship. 5. In reply, the ld. Counsel submitted that if the bought-out items are first brought to appellant s factory and then forwarded to site will amount to sending Turbine in CKD/SKD condition, the fact of sending them directly to the site should not change the position. He emphasised that the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
