9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal Commissioner, after a detailed adjudication in terms of the show cause notice. The Additional Commissioner examined the pleas of appellants pertaining to various processes carried out by them and negatived their plea that such processes did not bring into existence of goods in terms of the parts of motor vehicles to be classified under Chapter heading 8708.00 for the period 1994-95 and 1995-96. He has also rejected the plea that the demands were hit by limitation. In the detailed Order-in-Original, the Additional Commissioner has discussed the evidence leading to the conclusion that the appellants activity resulted in manufacture of goods and this was also based on the admissions and statements given by the Managing Director of the com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri K.R. Natrajan, learned Advocate pleads that the activity carried out by the appellant was not the activity of manufacture and no goods emerged in the premises of the appellants and they are only job workers for M/s. Madras Radiators and they are only carrying out the activity of cutting and punching holes which did not amount to manufacture of goods. He submits that the appellants unit had been visited by officers of the department and hence the demands were barred by time. He further submits that the appellants is a SSI and they are not in a position to pre-deposit the amounts as the total turnover was less than Rs. 14 lacs for the year ending 31-3-1998. He submits that if they are directed to pay the entire amount, then it will cause g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... outer brackets and stiffners, etc., which were parts and spares of motor vehicles. The Additional Commissioner had examined even the aspect pertaining to limitation and held that there was clear suppression in the matter. Therefore, the learned SDR points out that the Commissioner (Appeals) was fully justified in holding that no prima facie case has been made out for waiver. Therefore, She submits that the appellants are required to be pre-deposited the amounts, before the order of remand is given for decision on merits. 4. On a careful consideration of the submissions and on a perusal of the records, we notice that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not discussed the prima facie nature of the case. Therefore, we take up this issue and see a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lacs only) within a period of three months from today. On such pre-deposit being made, the balance amount of duty, mandatory penalty and penalty imposed under Section (sic) 173Q shall stand waived and recovery thereof stayed. As the Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the matter on merits. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting their appeal under Section 35F of the Act, is set aside and the matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) who on satisfying himself with the proof of pre-deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lacs) being made by the appellants, consider the aspect on merits, after expiry of three months from to day. The Commissioner (Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
