9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds of duties and has imposed the following penalties upon the various appellants as under :- Parties' Names Duty Amounts Rs. Penalties Rs. Dates of S.C. Notices Periods Involved (I) Utkal Automobiles 9,79,985.00 10.00 Lakh 14-2-1994 20-3-1990 to 27-2-1993 (II) Bhalotia Engg. 44,61,983.00 44.62 Lakh do do (III) Bharat Engg. 70,09,318.00 70.10 Lakh do do (IV) Bhawani Press Metals 49,81,063.00 49.82 Lakh do do (V) Tramco Coaches 54,93,399.09 55.00 Lakh do do 3. All the appellants are manufacturers of bodies of motor vehicles after receipt of duty-paid chassis. Building/Mounting of bodies on duty-paid chassis has been specifically made a process of manufacture of motor vehicles. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants for the periods - 20-3-1990 to 27-2-1993 in respect of the motor vehicles meant for transportation of goods and after 27-2-1993 in respect of the motor vehicles meant for carriage of passengers on the ground that the parts manufactured by the appellants and used in the manufacture of such bodies, were required to pay duty. 5. The said show cause notices issued to the appellants culminated into the impugned Orders confirming the demands of duties and imposing penalties upon the various appellants as detailed above. 6. Shri K.P. Chowdhury, learned Advocate for the appellants have challenged the above Orders on merits as also on limitation. The appellants' contention is that the product on which the duties have been dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of the bodies to be used by them in the manufacture of the vehicles. He submits that they have not suppressed any factor from the Revenue Officers who were all aware of the manufacturing process being undertaken by the appellants. In these circumstances, invocation of the longer period was not justified. 8. Shri Chowdhury also made a reference to the fact that the Government of India has issued a Notification No. 9/96-C.E.(N.T.), dated 21-5-1996 under Section 11C for the period from 28-2-1993 to 28-2-1994 on the ground that there was a general practice of not levying duty on such component parts/structures during the said period. He submits that the issuance of the said Notification was necessitated for the said period because with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid lists showed manufacture of parts which were approved as being exempted under Notification No. 217/86. RT-12 returns were filed and duly assessed by the proper officers. In the fact of these facts, the allegation of suppression, mis-statement etc. on the part of the appellants was not justified. 11. It is seen that the factum of the appellant companies engaged in the fabrication of the bodies on the duty-paid chassis, was admittedly in the knowledge of the Revenue. All the appellants were L-4 Licencees and have filed classification lists. Fabrication of bodies essentially involve fabrication of the various types of parts like windows, doors etc. To allege that the Revenue was not made aware of the manufacture of these components/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reas Member (Technical) was of the opinion that the demands were barred by limitation and as such, the appellants are entitled to unconditional stay, Member (Judicial) entertained a view that the appellants should be directed to deposit 25% of the total duties confirmed against them. On dispute being resolved by the Third Member, the majority view held that the appellants have a prima facie case on the point of limitation. It was held by the Third Member as under :- "........Reading the two Notifications together namely, Notification Nos. 217/86 and 89/90, the applicants had made their intention very clear that on parts and accessories, they would not pay any duty in terms of Notification No. 217/86 and that they would clear the motor vehi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
