9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 734X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chnical) Shri Rupesh Kumar, Advocate for the appellant Shri G.R. Singh, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent ORDER Per. B. Ravichandran The present appeal is against order dated 09/10/2006 of Commissioner (Appeals), Meerut I. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various excisable goods. The present case relates to 10 nos. of Super Rapid Gun Mount (SRGM) manufactured and cleared to Indian Navy through M/s Garden Reach Shipbuilders Engineers Ltd. and M/s Goa Shipyard Ltd., during October, 1994 to January 2003. The appellants filed classification declaration claiming nil rate of duty on these SRGM under Central Excise Tariff Heading (CETH) 9301.00 and duty @ 24% on parts/access assemblies of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have to suffer duty. The captive consumption exemption under Notification No. 67/95 is not available to the appellants. 4. The First Appellate Authority decided the appeal by Revenue. Vide the impugned order dated 09/10/2006 he held that the assessee is required to discharge duty on all individual parts/sub-assemblies which were used in combination with other parts/components to manufacture the complete SRGMs. 5. Appellant filed the present appeal before us against this order. We have heard both the sides and perused records. Though appellants contested the impugned order on various grounds, the main thrust of their plea is that they have been discharging duty at the tariff rates on the parts/components/sub-assemblies manufactured wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. On the above set of admitted facts we have asked the learned Counsel for the appellant about the exact nature of their grievance against impugned order. The learned Counsel submitted that the said order is being interpreted as giving effect to full original demand of duty. We find no justification for such view. While there is no dispute on the legal principle upheld by the impugned order, the duty liability of appellant has to be found on the basis of already discharged duty, exclusion of bought out items and imported SRGM as discussed above. If needed the Original Authority can re-verify the correct payment of duty by the appellant with the records. 9. On the above observation the appeal by the appellant is disposed of. ( Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
