9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) [ Order per: T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - 1. These appeals have been against the following Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Bangalore. (i) OIA No. 127/2004, dated 14-10-2004 (ii) OIA No. 152/2004, dated 30-12-2004. 2. The appellants M/s. Pushpa Roto Printers, Bangalore are the manufacturers of excisable goods falling under Chapters 39 and 48 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They hold Central Excise Registration Certificate 4/95. Revenue proceeded against the appellant on the ground that they Ito discharge Central Excise duty liability on the product manufactured by them. They were also undertaking job work. It was alleged that they did not include the cost of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 35A(4A) of Central Excise Act, 194 The learned Advocate pointed that the Commissioner (A) has simply confirmed the orders of the lower authority without applying his mind. Further pre deposits of Rs. 80,000/- and Rs. 35,000/- made by the appellants have not be mentioned in the two OIAs. 5. It was stated that the appellants receives raw material for job work. They are actually lay-flat Tubing of LDPE/HMHDPE/Polypropylene, PV Plain rolls or such other material of plastic falling under Chapter Sub-heading No. 39.17 or 39.20 of the Central Excise Tariff. It is state that the raw material subjected to printing and returned to the raw material supplier in the same form. The final product derived out of such activity of the appellant is cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 96 ought to have been issued only by a Commissioner, because the period covered is 17 months. He referred to Board's Circular dated 14-5-1992 and in terms of Note (a) to the aforesaid Circular, the second show cause notice dated 4-2-97 also should have been issued by the Commissioner. As the show cause notices are issued by the Range Superintendent without jurisdiction, the same are ab initio void and therefore, the consequential orders are in fructuous and hence, they are liable to be quashed. Further, the above show cause notices have been issued for extended period without invoking proviso to Section 11A and no suppression has been alleged. Further for the same reasons, for a different period, invoking proviso to Section 11A in third s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reiterated the impugned orders-in-appeal. 7. On a very careful consideration of the issue, we find that in the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 152/2004, the Commissioner (A) has stated the following ground of appeal among other things. "The period covered in first show cause notice is from 1-4-95 to 13-8-1996 (17 months) and the second show cause notice is from 14-8-1996 to 19-12- 1996 (4 months), in terms of the proviso to Section 11A only Commissioner of Central Excise is empowered to issue show cause notice and not the Range Superintendent and the demand raised for payment of duty is hit by limitation." The above is the contention of the appellant. Though this has been recorded in the impugned order, the same has not been examined ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Total turnover as per worksheet attached to the SCN 36,11,972 47,28,167 40,52,676. 39.17 LFT (Exemption allowed in the OIO) 9,59,259 10,22,012 9,36,515 Balance 26,52,713 37,06,155 31,16,161 39.23 job Work 3,77,678 3,31,709 3,72,721 39.23 Manufactured 9,36,891 8,57,273 1,36,880 48 76(Others) 8,66,590 17,11,835 3,64,812 Total Within the exemption limit 21,81,159 29,00,817 21,05,813 Difference : Not explained in the SCN reported to be falling under CSH 3293.90 4,71,554 8,05,338 10,10,3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In view of these things, the Order-in-Appeal No. 127/1004, dated 14-10-2004 is also liable to be set aside. Therefore, this order is also remanded to Commissioner (A) for giving a clear finding on the entitlement of various deductions as claimed by the appellant. While passing these orders, we hold that mere printing does not amount to manufacture. Therefore in all cases, where charges are collected for mere printing, the same should not be included in the total turnover. It is also further seen that the Additional Commissioner as Original Authority has allowed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 14/92 for the year 92-93, 93-94, and 94-95. However, the same has not been allowed for the year 95-96 to 96-97, so this point also has to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
