Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (12) TMI 345

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (Sl. No.223A). There are two entries pertaining to the relevant case in Notification No.6/2002. The first entry at Sl. No.223A covers parts and accessories falling under CETH 90.18.90.19 or 9022.10. The second Sl. No.223B covers parts and accessories of medical equipment and other goods specified in List I annexed to the Notification No.10/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 falling under CETH 90 or any other chapter. Under both the serial numbers the rate of duty is 'nil'. Taking a view that what was being manufactured by the appellant was not sub-assembly of scanners but in reality was Ultra-Sound Scanner system, investigation was taken up and proceedings were initiated which culminated in the impugned order wherein the Commissioner has upheld the s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... system but the scanner system itself which is fully assembled and finished goods having the essential characteristic of an Ultra-Sound Scanner system and can perform the basic functions of scanner. 5. First of all the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Wipro itself as reported in [2006 (202) E.L.T. 141 (Tri.-Bang.)] to submit that probes, monitor and keyboard assemblies etc are part of scanners. It is his submission that Wipro after receiving the item from the appellant/ assessee, adds up some critical parts like probes and software CD for image transfer without which the scanner is not usable by the diagnostic centres. It is their submission that according to the department 'probe' is not an essential .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and from the understanding of an ordinary prudent person, in this case what Wipro does is to add the software to computers which is already part of the scanner and which already has the facility to receive the images transmitted by a 'probe' and with the help of software the data is converted into a medically useful form. (The issue has been stated in a simple layman's language as it was understood). The 'probe' converts electrical signals and transmits to computer which interprets the same. The net result is the whole process of receiving image, converting image and interpreting the same is done by scanner with the help of software since computer is already a part of the scanner. We also find ourselves in agreement with the submissions th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ENVAT credit available would be Rs. 9,000/- per unit. Moreover Wipro is paying duty on the finished goods manufactured by them. It is not the case of the Revenue that goods have been sold in the market or to some other person. It has also not been denied that all the goods manufactured have been supplied to Wipro only. Under these circumstances whatever duty was paid by the appellant would have been available to Wipro as CENVAT credit. Thus considering the duty liability as well as Revenue-neutrality, the appellant/assessee and Wipro had no reason to resort to evasion of duty. The learned AR challenged this view on the ground that if the situation was Revenue-neutral and CENVAT credit availed was more than the duty payable, question arises .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e an assesee chooses an interpretation beneficial to him, there can be an allegation of suppression or misdeclaration. In view of the available facts and circumstances of the case and several decisions relied upon and cited by the learned counsel (we have not taken note of all of them since we do not feel the need), appellant cannot be found fault with for coming up with an interpretation and availing the benefit which was not available to them. Under these circumstances, we have to take a view that the order of the Commissioner limiting the demand to the normal period and not imposing the penalty was an order which rendered justice to the appellant/assessee without being unfair to the Revenue. Therefore we do not find any merit in the appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates