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

2007 (9) TMI 138

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ery outset, by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant does not challenge the impugned order on the question of classification of the goods in question, namely, ZYGLO-ZP-4B and 9CZ. 2. The appellants were manufacturers of non-destructive testing equipment and consumables. According to the Revenue, they were having a godown at shed No. 31 APIIC, Phase-II, IDA, Pashyamylaram, in Medak District. These premises were not registered nor declared with the Central Excise Department. The appellants were re-packing certain chemicals in the said premises. The chemicals, namely, ZYGLO-ZP-4B and 9C RED concentrate were received in bulk packing of 205 litre of drums and these were re-packed into small packs of 1 kg. and cle .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ority held that, the assessee had suppressed the facts and mislead the Department because the process of re-packing and selling as trading items in respect of ZYGLO-ZP-4B and 9C RED in shed no. 31 had not been specifically declared to the Department. 4. The Appellate Commissioner upheld the demand in respect of the goods by classifying ZYGLO-ZP-4B under Chapter 3206.20 and 9C RED under Chapter Heading 2821.90. On the issue of limitation, it was held that, the appellants did not show that they declared the fact of repacking the goods to the Department. The contention that the notice was time-barred; was, therefore, rejected. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that, an intimation was given to the Department o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h an intent to evade payment of duty. 6. The learned authorized representative for the Department strongly contended that as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules, as they prevailed in the year 1991, the manufacturer was required to give a notice to the Collector. He drew our attention to Rule 43 for submitting that the notice addressed to the Asstt. Collector on 28-7-1992 cannot be considered to be a sufficient intimation of the correct facts, as required to be sent under that Rule. He argued that, in the said communication dated 28th July, 1992, it was stated that the trading activity was carried out in Phase-II IDA, Plot No. 36, Pashyamylaram, while the investigation had revealed that the appellant was having a godown in shed N .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... from the said intimation that it was addressed to the jurisdictional Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, with a view to bring to the notice of the Revenue the facts mentioned therein. The subject of the said communication was "Central Excise, certain non-excisable items not involving manufacture". There were several items mentioned in the said communication of which we are concerned in the present appeal only with the items ZYGLO-ZP-4B and 9C RED. As regards the products ZYGLO-ZP-4B and 9C RED, para 6 of the said communication read with Annexure-IV are relevant. In para 6, it was stated that, the appellant was importing the goods listed in Annexure-IV. It was further stated that, the appellant repacked the bulk goods into smaller packs and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ct of one of the items covered thereunder and held that, there was no suppression of facts in the case as the assessee has already brought the matter to the notice of the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner under the said letter. If under the same communication, the Revenue considered that there was no suppression of facts in respect of one of the items, namely, 8A RED, it does not stand to reason as to why a different stance should be adopted by the Revenue for the said two products in respect of which the intimation was clearly given as to the nature of the activity, namely, re-packing bulk goods into smaller packs and labelling them with their own brand name. The communication was addressed to the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, who, .....

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