9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (3) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame and style of a young Engineering Graduate (who says he was not conversant with Central Excise Rules and Regulations) hereinafter called appellant, are the outcome of visit dated 5-6-74 by Preventive officers of Central Excise Bareilly to appellants premises. The Excise authorities found six coolers two complete and four partly assembled, and valued at ₹ 4,105/- at the appellant s shop. On further investigation, the authorities also found that the appellant had sold component parts of coolers through different sales vouchers to different consumers. It was found that the appellant had assembled these component parts into coolers at the consumer premises. show cause notice dated 23-9-74 as to why penalty be not imposed for manufactur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision is confined to demand of duty on 22 coolers and the quantum of penalty. In this connection, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise in his order observed, Although the party had not issued any voucher for full and complete coolers, but these had been issued for component parts and cabinets, but the fact remains that the cabinet of a cooler be utilised for any other purpose except manufacturing and completing a cooler by supplementing other component parts through different sale vouchers. In a number of cases, the party made out more than one vouchers for sale of all the component parts required in a cooler and recovered assembly charges as well . 4. The Appellate Collector in his order very briefly stated this part of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant sold component parts and these parts were got assembled by consumers either through appellant or some other agency as coolers, it cannot be said that ready assembled units ordinarily sold or offered for sale within the meaning of sub-item 29A(2) were manufactured to attract duty liability under the item. It has also not been suggested or argued that these 22 coolers would attract duty liability under some other item of the tariff. In taking this view, we are fortified by another decision of the Bench in Life Insurance Corporation v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay (Order No. 45/85-B, dated 25-1-1985) where the Bench in respect of coolers installed by the LIC at its office at Raipur by obtaining exhaust fans and payment of inst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
