Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1999 (6) TMI 298

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the appellants) or under Heading 7008.90 (claimed by the Revenue). (b) availability of Modvat credit on HIP granules used for the manufacture of HIP trays for packing is electronic products on the ground that no declaration was filed under Rule 57G. 2. The amount of duty confirmed in the order impugned on ground (a) above is Rs. 3,40,38,411.19 for the period from 1-1-1991 to 28-2-1994 under Section 11A and denial of Modvat credit availed amounting to Rs. 1,26,622.93 during the period 11-3-1992 to 22-3-1993 because these granules were used in the manufacture of plastic trays which had not been declared as final product in the declaration filed under Rule 57G. Penalty of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- was also imposed under Rule 173Q. 3. Heard .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r Heading 85.40. The learned Advocate submits that from this it is evident that it was made very clear that these were parts suitable for photo cathode valves and tubes. He further submits that in reply to a query by the Range Superintendent concerned vide his letter dated 13-6-1988 (at exhibit-II of the paper book) asking for detailed write-up and the use of the products contained in the classification list No. 1/88 with effect from 11-7-1988, the appellants had filed their reply on 14-7-1988 and informed the said Superintendent as follows :- Electron Gun parts are used to assemble/ manufacture the Electron Gun. The Electron Gun is the heart of the TV picture tube. The picture tube is used to assemble a Television r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rmation with intent to evade duty. 4. To the question of classification of these items, the learned Advocate submits that the issue is covered in the decision of the Hon ble Tribunal in the case of Prakash Pipes Industries Ltd. as reported in 1995 (56) ECR wherein it has been held in para 15 of the order at page 79 that the classification under the Customs Tariff Act for parts of electron gun has been accepted under sub-heading 8544.90. He also submits that the principle behind such classification was considered by Three Member Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M.K. Kachawala v. C.C. as reported in 1990 (45) E.L.T. 461, wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of Atul Glass Industries Ltd. as reported in 1986 (25) E.L .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the case law of Atul Glass Industries (supra) that the same was with reference to the Central Excise Tariff which was no more at force as far as this case was concerned. He also submits that the case of M.K. Kachawala was also with respect to Customs tariff Act, 1975 which was not in harmony of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, therefore, stood distinguished. He further submits that in the case of Prakash Pipes and Industries Ltd. (supra) the parts of electron gun had been imported in an assembled condition. However, in the instant case, there was no such assemble, hence the case could be distinguished on facts. He further submits that in that case the emphasis was more on the import of the goods without a valid licence under the Import Tra .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd that the appellants filed in the classification list as well as in the letter noted above had clearly declared as far back as 1988/1989 that the disputed products were ultimately leading to manufacture of cathode ray tube. Since this is the only ground on which the Order-in-Original impugned has sought to invoke the extended period and since this ground is not supported by facts on record as found above, therefore, we find that the demand is clearly barred by limitation as proviso to Section 11A would not applicable to the facts of this case. Since the entire demand is already held to be time barred, we do not find it necessary to further examine the merits of the case with respect to the rival classification agitated in the case records .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates