9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 954X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 26/03/2014 started with a visit of the officers to the factory of the appellant on 02/12/2002. Evidences were collected during the course of detailed investigation. Statements were recorded in order to ascertain the background facts of the manufacturing process. It was also revealed that the very same goods were classified differently when cleared for export. The Original Authority recorded that it apparently reveals the motive of the appellant for improper gain to avoid payment of higher duty of excise under CETH 8528. We are in agreement with the findings of the Original Authority that the present show cause notice was not issued on similar set of evidences or facts which were subjected to decision in the earlier proceedings - extended period rightly invoked. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Excise Appeals No. 53132-53135, 53178 of 2014 - Final Order No. 58437-58441/2017 - Dated:- 19-12-2017 - Hon ble Shri Justice Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Hon ble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member ( Technical ) Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate - for the appellants Shri H.C. Saini, Authorized Representative (DR) for the respondent ORDER Per. B. Ravichandra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f television receivers changed. It was no longer required to assemble the sub-assembly and chassis for subjecting the same to test for functionality. The sub-assembly and chassis were checked on separate jigs which is an instrument to be used for checking functioning of the parts of the TV and there is no assembly and disassembly by the appellant. These subassemblies and chassis were registered as parts manufactured and were cleared independently on payment of duty under CETH 8529. There is no evasion of Central Excise duty as the buyer is assembling the sub-assemblies and chassis to make TV sets and cleared the same on payment of applicable duty for TV sets. The ratio of the Hon ble Supreme Court decision for the earlier period is not applicable due to change in the technology and the process undertaken by the main appellant for testing components. 4. It was further submitted that show cause notice dated 03/07/2003 is fully time barred and show cause notice dated 09/05/2003 is partly time barred. The whole issue in the present dispute is regarding correct classification of goods cleared by the appellant. The said dispute has been going on for many years and has reached the Apex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earing both the sides and on perusal of appeal records, we note that the issue involved is the correct classification of sub-assemblies and chassis manufactured and cleared by the main appellant. The question of limitation is also strongly contested. We take up the matter regarding correct classification of the product. Admittedly for the period 01/07/1993 to 28/02/1994 the issue of classification has been held against the appellants. The matter reached the Apex court in the appellant s own case and it was found that the goods are to be classified as television receivers and not as parts. The Hon ble Supreme Court observed as below :- 26. It is seen from the material on record, that at the time of the parts of the TV set being transported from the factory of the appellant, the parts manufactured by it are already identified as distinct units. As it can be seen from the affidavit of the Revenue, which has not been controverted by the appellant, the parts manufactured by it are matched and numbered within the factory itself, and also assembled together to receive pictures for the purpose of testing and quality control. The consequence of this is that the goods assembled at the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported by the appellant, and we are not convinced that the processes required to be carried out at the satellite units are so vital to the manufacture of the Television Receivers so as to render the goods transported by the appellant lacking the essential character of Television Receivers. Rule 2(a) of the Rules for Interpretation has been couched in wide terms, and in terms of this Rule, it is our view that the goods produced by the appellant do in fact possess the essential character of Television Receivers. 31. The appellant had also raised the plea of doubletaxation; however, in our view once the question of classification of the goods transported by the appellant has been answered in the above manner, it is not open to us to grant the appellant any relief on this ground alone. Further, it is always open to the satellite units of the appellant to avail input tax credit on the duty paid by the appellant on the goods transported by them. 32. In view of the facts stated hereinabove, we are of the view that the Tribunal did not commit any error while passing the impugned order and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs . 7. As already noted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication of the impugned goods under CETH 8528 of the Tariff. 10. The appellants contested both the demands on limitation. It is their claim that the dispute was going on for many years. The classification lists fled by them were approved/later disputed. The matter went up to the Hon ble Supreme Court for a final decision. As such, repeat show cause notices cannot be issued invoking suppression etc. for a demand of extended period. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the appellant in this regard. Heavy reliance was placed on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in Nizam Sugar Factory (supra). We note that the issue of limitation has been examined in detail in the impugned order dated 26/03/2014 which was passed as per the remand directions of this Tribunal vide final order dated 07/08/2013. The Apex court in Nizam Sugar Factory (supra) held that when the first show cause notice was issued all the relevant facts were in the knowledge of the authorities. Later on, while issuing the second and third show cause notices the same/ similar facts could not be taken as suppression of facts on the part of the assessee as these facts were already in the knowledge of the au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
