9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Penalty The India Thermit Corpn. Ltd. 62,60,022/- 62,60,022/- Sh. Alok Nagory, Mananging Director 1,00,000/- 2. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocate submitted that The India Thermit Corpn. Ltd. manufacture Thermit portions and Thermit welding equipments which were classified by them under heading 38.10 and under various sub-headings of Chapter 84 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, respectively; that around 20% of their production of Thermit portion is sold by them to Railways and remaining 80% is used by the appellants in the Rail jointing work on contract basis; that the demand of Central Excise duty has been confirmed for the period January, 1994 to 12-9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to the Railway and the invoice price for self use on day to day basis; that most of the comparative figures are for the small quantity sold at higher price; that if the highest of the price for bulk sale to Railway is taken as comparative price, no differential duty will be payable by them at all; that further they had incurred freight of Rs. 50/- per Thermit portion and if this transport charge is reduced from the price charged by them the price declared by them for self use will be comparable to the price at which Thermit portion was being sold to the Railways in bulk. Regarding charge of undervaluation in respect of Dry Moulds, the learned Counsel submitted that the Assistant commissioner had issued show cause notices demanding differ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iculars pertinent to the product leading to the correct classification of the products as declared in the classification list/declaration; that in the list attached to the classification list/declaration filed by the appellants such indispensible information about substance/material out of which the products were made was not given. He also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Saurashtra Chemicals v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, 1986 (23) E.L.T. 283, wherein it was held that the machinery parts made of carbon would fall under Chapter 68 of the Customs Tariff and not under Heading 84.65. The learned DR mentioned that the entire period of demand in the present matters is not covered by the show cause notices issued by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e list. He referred to pages 597 and 598 of their paper-book which contains a summary of the price list filed by them and date of approval by the Department. He also mentioned that they were filing the price list in Part-1 for the goods cleared for self use as per direction of the Department under letter C. No. 20/Misc./Thermit/78/666, dated 15-6-1978. Regarding the charge that they had not disclosed the substance/material of which the products were manufactured, the learned Counsel drew our attention to their letter dated 27-3-1979 addressed to the Assistant Collector in which they had submitted details of the raw materials used and manufacturing process of each and every goods on which they had claimed exemption. These goods include a num ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
