9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 394/- notice, along with penalty liability under Rule 173 Q for the period 1-3-1994 to 14-4-1994 was issued on 26-8-1994 alleging that appellants had cleared branded castings, without following the procedure under Notification No. 214/86 or under Rule 57F(3), where branding castings were excisable in Budget 1994. 4. In Appeal No. E/426/97, a notice dated 22-11-1994 was issued demanding duty (to be quantified later) and proposing penalty under Rule 173Q as the appellants were found to have, during the period 18-4-1994 to 20-6-1994, while having given a declaration of clearing Branded Castings to original manufacturer under Notification No. 87/94, dated 13-4-1994, had cleared such castings to intermediate persons (processors) who did machin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble. Since no undertaking as pointed out under Notification 214/86 was produced nor challans as prescribed were made, therefore they were required to pay duty. 6. We have heard Advocate for the appellants who reiterated the written submissions relying upon - (a) Board s instructions No. 71/71/94-C.E. (b) TRUs letter F. No. 540/12/94/-TRU to submit that they have not traded in the said castings, since - (i) Castings were made as per specific designs and samples with Brand name of supplier. (ii) Castings were further used by the supplier as O.E. in case of M/s. BDK Engineering Industries Ltd. M/s. Kirloskar Oil Engines and they relied upon M/s. S.A. Industries Ltd. [2000 (121) E.L.T. 393 1999 (112) E.L.T. 885]. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (Appeals) is coming to a finding of Trade in Castings . When a Brand name original equipment manufacturer is admittedly getting the castings made with his Brands on them and is supplying the samples, patterns, etc., and some parts of the goods are admittedly supplied directly back to them, the re-routing through a processor for machining only in same cases, since proof machining facility, as required on such castings was not admittedly available with the appellants as pleaded, does not enthuse us to come to a conclusion that there was trading in such parts or castings supplied via processors i.e. proof machiners. The benefit of Notification No. 87/94 could therefore not be denied, due to such a route of proof machiners as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
