9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,000/- under Rule 173Q of C.E. Rules, 1944. 2. The allegation against the appellants is that they had received from M/s. SNG Engineering Works, Koratty (2) Uma Industries, Koratty (3) Indian Engineering Works incomplete/unfinished winding machines. The same were installed by the appellants and brought into existence a fully complete winding machine which was marketable and they had shifted the same to their sister unit being immovable goods. They had not informed the Department and they had not paid duty and therefore proceedings were initiated and after observing the principles of natural justice the Commissioner noting the Tribunal judgment rendered in the case of Engineering and Commercial Agencies Ltd v. CCE, Madras [1996 (82) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not the manufacturer is a legal point which has been raised in the grounds of appeal and the Tribunal can grant them permission to adduce the same in terms of law. He submits that an identical order placed in respect of another sister unit was also the subject matter of adjudication. The Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai vide his Order-in-Original No. 27/99, dated 28-10-1999, examined this plea that the processes carried out at their factory did not result in a process of manufacture and no new goods had arisen. He submits that they had taken this as a ground before the Commissioner and the Commissioner had overruled this plea in the impugned order and there are two contradictory orders. The Order-in-Original No. 27/99, dated 28 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied out the activity of assembly and it was not the supplier who had done. He points out to para 12 of the order wherein the Commissioner has recorded that appellant had also assembled the unit in their premises and it was the appellant who brought into existence the cone winding machine which achieved the functional utility only at that point of time only it came into existence on the appellants completing the work. 6. Ld. SDR also pointed out that as the findings have been clearly recorded on manufacture, there is no question of holding that appellants are not the manufacturers but the suppliers are the manufacturers. He submits that the order of Jt. Commissioner in OIO is not binding as the present proceedings are independent. As regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting the plea that the question of manufacturer has to be first addressed to, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the original authority on de novo is also required to consider this point on the aspect who the manufacture is? 9. The second point raised by the ld. representative that the same Commissioner while deciding the aspect of limitation in respect of Tuticorin unit has clearly given a finding that appellants were under bona fide belief and they had not wilfully suppressed any information and they were not liable to pay duty for larger period. This finding has been recorded on 17-1-1997 in OIO No. 3/97 by the same Commissioner and the impugned order has taken different view with regard to present unit. As the adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
