9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05 is not sustainable - for the period from 13.05.2005 to 10.10.2005 neither the said Show Cause Notice nor the findings by Original Authority could establish that the chains of base metal on which there was no plating with precious metal and for which duty was demanded and confirmed were capable of being any small object of personal adornment. Therefore, the said Show Cause Notice even for the period 13.05.2005 to 10.10.2005 is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/3749/2006-EX[DB] - A/70603/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 12-6-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) None for Appellant Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Superintendent (AR), for Respondent ORDE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 01.03.2003 09.07.2004 to 28.02.2005 16% 16% Sr. No.3 of Notification No.10/2001-CE dated 01.03.2001as amended by Notification No. 25/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 01.03.2005 to 10.10.2005 16% 8% Sr. No.16 of Notification No.4/2005-CE dated 01.03.2005 It was alleged that appellant failed to get registered with Central Excise Department and follow Central Excise procedures in spite of having been engaged in the manufacture of dutiable goods viz. Imitation Jewellery. It was stated in the said Show Cause Notice that Imitation Jewellery was manufactured in the factory of appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice Central Excise duty of ₹ 26,59,469/- was demanded invoking extended period. Further, there were proposals for penalty and interest. The said Show Cause Notice was adjudicated through impugned Order-in-Original No.15/Commr./MP/2006 dated 25.07.2006. The appellant stated before the Original Authority that the Departmental Officers themselves had visited their manufacturing unit in the year 2001. The Departmental Officers had satisfied themselves that such goods were not liable to pay Central Excise duty and therefore the Department had no right to issue Show Cause Notice under extended period. The appellant submitted before the Original Authority that they had given declaration that the goods manufactured by them which were not sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that expression Imitation Jewellery means articles of jewellery within the meaning of Chapter Note 7(a) above i. e. any small object of personal adornment and that said legal position underwent change with effect from 13.05.2005 Imitation Jewellery was brought under Tariff Item No. 71179090 with effect from 01.03.2005 with effect from 13.05.2005 there was addition of words of base metal, whether or not plated with precious metal . He, further, argued that chains of base metals manufactured by them which were not plated with precious metal were treated as goods manufactured by Revenue and Central Excise duty of ₹ 26,59,469/- was demanded through the said Show Cause Notice dated 23.03.2006. He, further, argued that the said Show Ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
