9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... da, Member (J) [Order per: Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. -1 . Heard both sides. 2. In view of the fact that there were multiplicity of proceedings earlier and a number of Show Cause Notices were issued, a factual report was called for from the Jurisdictional Commissioner, who in his letter dated 7-09-2007 has stated as under: "1. There were 6 (six) Show Cause Notices on the assessee demanding duty of Rs.2,01,28,802/- adjudicated vide Order-in-Original No.19-24/Commr./99 dated 13-5-99. However, on an appeal by the assessee the same was remanded by Hon'ble CESTAT vide order dated 21-12-2001. 2. Again, there were second sets of Show Cause Notices totaling fifteen, demanding total duty of Rs.3,32,60,945/- (out of them one SCN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 27-7-92 demanding differential duty oh such air conditioning machine removed as such amounting to Rs.76,09,572.71 (Rs.2,73,735/-) paid as duty only against availment of credit of Rs. 78,83,307.71). (iii) Besides, on the clearance of said Air-conditioning machine in CKD/SKD condition, differential duty was also demanded vide SCN dated 4-5-92 along with other 14SCNs, by proposing to classify them as parts. However, this issue was put to rest in the Order-in-Original dated 12-12-2005 mentioned above. 5. As regards demand in 4(i) 4(ii) above, in the Order-in-Original No.56-57/Commr/03 dated 31-12-2003, it has been categorically held that both the issues can not go simultaneously in as much as, if credit is proposed to be di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 31-1-2003 and de novo Order-in-Original 24/Commr./2005 dated 12-12-2005 are enclosed herewith for necessary reference. 3. A copy of the report from the Jurisdictional Commissioner has been made available to the appellants. Shri Anjan Sarkar, ld. C.A. appearing on behalf of the appellants states that the impugned airconditioner which is the subject matter of demand under Show Cause Notice dated 27-7-92 leading to the impugned order dated 31-12-2003 was imported by the appellants and credit of additional customs duty paid thereon was taken by the appellants and the said airconditioner was subsequently cleared under gate pass No.1200 dated 24-1-1992 as a part of stamping, charging and pushing machinery. He states that as regards cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and perusal of case records including the report submitted by the present Jurisdictional Commissioner, we are of the view that since the order dated 12-12-2005 treats the airconditioner as a part of the finished goods viz, stamping, charging and pushing machinery on which the applicable rate of duty has been paid, the demand of duty on the airconditioner treating removal of the same as clearance of inputs as such is not justified. Accordingly, we set aside the duty demand of Rs.76,09,572.71 confirmed under the impugned order dated 31-12-2003. Consequently the penalty imposed on the appellants is also set aside. The appeal is allowed in the above terms with consequential benefits to the appellants. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
