9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firmed the demand for the period from 1-2-1989 to 1-12-1989 under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. In the impugned order, the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., was also denied to the appellants on the ground that the appellants were clearing aluminium flanges after fixing the name/logo of M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (B.H.E.L.). A demand was also confirmed in respect of tooling charges, which were not included in the assessable value of the goods. A penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was also imposed on the appellants under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of aluminium flanges and they filed a classification list in respect of these flanges an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utta-I reported in 1998 (98) E.L.T. 622 (Tribunal) = 1998 (24) RLT 628 (CEGAT). 5. He, further, submits that the duty is demanded for the period 1-2-1989 to 1-12-1989 and the show cause notice was issued on 20-2-1991. He submits that the extended period of limitation is invoked on the ground that the appellants misdeclared their product. He submits that the appellants were filing regularly the classification lists. He submits that in the classification lists filed w.e.f. 1-3-1989, they specifically mentioned the goods, in question, as parts of electrical insulators, aluminium flanges castings. He submits that the classification list was duly approved after verification. His contention is that the appellants specifically mentioned the prod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arges, he submits that the appellants were charging these charges from customers, which is not denied by them. He submits that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of U.O.I. v. Bombay Tyre International reported in 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 held that designing and engineering charges, in regard to render the product marketable, shall be included in the assessable value of the goods. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be dismissed. 8. Heard both sides. 9. In this case, the duty is demanded for the period from 1-2-1989 to 1-12-1989 and the show cause notice was issued on 20-2-1991 under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The extended period of limitation is invoked on the ground that the appellants misdeclared the product. We find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
