9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of duty as exempted under Notification No. 65/87 dated 1-3-1987 as made without the aid of power. After investigations, show cause notice dated 13-12-1994 was issued holding that the goods were actually manufactured with the aid of power and therefore, this notice invoked the extended period as contemplated in proviso to Section 11A of the Act on the allegation that the manufacturers had wilfully suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of duty on the goods manufactured by them. The adjudication Order No. 7/98, dated 23-7-1998 impugned in this appeal was passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I confirming duty demand of Rs. 26,63,825/-. The order also imposed a penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs on the manufacturer. 2. The appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel submitted that when the intention was that exemption should be applicable only to producing entirely without the use of power, care was taken to use words like no process is carried out with the aid of power. In the other cases, even if power was used for carrying out some of the processes, it would still be a situation of making without the aid of power. In the instant case, as only very few of the processes like cutting and stitching are alleged to be carried out with the aid of power, and remaining processes are admittedly carried out without the aid of power, this case would be still one where goods are made without the aid of power. The learned counsel also contended that the demand is on account of a misunderstanding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He submitted that it has to be assumed that approval are granted after due verification and therefore, it was not open to the department to allege at a later time that any suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty had taken place. With regard to demand being inflated, learned counsel submitted that the demand has been worked out on the entire amount realised by the appellants. Learned counsel submitted that such computation is not legally correct. The adjudicating authority should have treated the amount realised by the appellants as cum-duty realisation. Assessable value should have been worked out from such gross realisation after giving permissible deductions in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. 5. Learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. It would be grossly unreasonable to argue that everyone of those processes should be carried out with the aid of power if the goods are to be treated as made with the aid of power. This would also lead to absurd results. He, therefore, submitted that the vertical blinds involved in the present case should be treated as made with the aid of power and there is no error in the impugned order on this score. With regard to the contention that during the relevant period vertical blinds were not liable to duty under heading 6301, learned DR submitted that the tariff heading 6301 covered made-up textile articles not elsewhere specified . Therefore, the entry was broad enough to cover all made-up textile articles. The amendment of 1995 so as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his is a case clearly involving suppression of facts and mis-statement which are specifically covered by proviso to Section 11A. In such a case, the approval of classification list did not confer any immunity on the appellants. 6. We have perused the records and have considered the rival submissions. In the instant case, the appellants had procured various inputs like aluminium channels, fabrics etc. By carrying out various processes on these materials, they brought into existence an entirely new product, namely, blinds. The blinds have very different identity and use than the inputs in their original state. Therefore, the criteria required for holding the new goods to be manufactured goods are fully met. We are not able to find merit in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no addition or curtailment. It only facilitated levying different rates of duty, if so considered proper, on each of the items or group of items covered by the various sub-headings, rather than subjecting all made-up goods to duty at one rate. We are, therefore, not able to agree with the appellants contention that prior to 1995, the goods were not liable to central excise duty. The appellants contention that the demand is time-barred is also not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of this case. The appellants had claimed the exemption which was applicable to goods made without the aid of power. Subsequent verifications and investigations showed that important processes involved in the manufacture were carried out with the aid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
