9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (6) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench-B, as Appeal No. E (1789)96-B, when it was directed to be transferred to Bangalore Bench, on request made by the appellant. Hon'ble President ordered the transfer on 31-1-2001 and it has now come before us. 2. A show cause notice at 21-1-1995 was issued, alleging that :- (i) The appellant is manufacturing Alarm Time pieces and parts thereof. (ii) They were alleged to have misused Notification No. 72/86, dated 10-2-1986 by supplying 'parts of one day alarm time pieces' in the guise of 'alarm time pieces' and they evaded duty as it was noticed that all clearance documents mentioned thereon as 'SKD'. No packaging slips or serial nos. were issued/allocated to such SKD removals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered under Rule 173Q(2) and the present appeal is against this order. 4. After hearing both sides and considering the submissions we find (a) There is no dispute that the goods removed were not as completely assembled 'one day alarm clocks'. The appellants submitted that the removal was in the form of a 'KIT' of all the parts required to assemble the 'clock' and the SDR drew our attention to the finding of the learned Commissioner that the removals would not be co-related to a particular number of 'clocks' removed in the kit form. The facts, therefore, are required to be established. (b) The learned Advocate for the appellants, submitted and relied upon the decisions of Madras High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had found that the Tribunal in that case had proceeded on the assumption that 'nothing was done by the PCA except to gather the various tax paid articles and put them in a box themselves and in the facts and circumstances of the case that would constitute manufacture; they did not uphold the Tribunal's finding and they remanded the case back to the adjudication to determine whether a 'new product came into existence'. We would also following the same & remand this matter back. (d) In this case if a finding is arrived that by placing 'all parts in the box in KIT form' would constitute a new product, it has to be classified accordingly and the question of discharge of duty on parts considered. (e) & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
