9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder CETH 90183210 as needles for suture, the fact is that they cannot be used as such for suturing purposes - it is noted that type 2 needle suture thread is fused with the needle by the manufacturer and the due is sterilized and packed. In the event, while the cleared needles having vertical punch‛, may well be final goods for the appellants, it can only be considered as a part or accessory for the manufacturer who would eventually be manufacturing Atraumatic Needled Suture - the impugned item being part / accessory of the Atraumatic Needled Suture required to be classified under CETH 9018, the said impugned goods would fall within the beneficial scope of Sl.No.59 of N/N. 6/.2006-CE and be eligible for the exemption provided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 11AC of the Act read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Another SCN dt. 22.11.2011 was also issued to appellants for subsequent period with proposed demand of ₹ 25,21,855/- with interest and other proposals identical to what was made in the earlier SCN dt. 25.4.2011. In adjudication, the commissioner vide an impugned order dt. 31.08.2012 confirmed the proposals in the SCNs, classified the impugned item under CETH 90183210, confirmed demand of ₹ 1,47,70,969/- with interest thereon and also imposed penalties under Section 11AC of the Act. Aggrieved the appellants are before this forum. 2. On the date of hearing, on behalf of the appellant, ld. Consultant Shri R.Janardhanan Pillai made the following arguments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only on 25.4.2011. The SCN has alleged that appellant had not provided details of clearances, quantity, value etc. However in para-6 of the SCN itself it is admitted that appellants had cleared 8092686 dozens of Autramatic Suture Needle as per the ER-1 returns for the period from 04/06 to10/2010. When ER-1 returns have indicated impugned clearances no suppression can be alleged by the department. 3. On the other hand, Ld. A.R Shri C.Arul Durairaj supports the impugned order. He submits that when the appellants were paying Central Excise duty on finished goods manufactured and cleared as Suture Needles‛, they cannot claim a different treatment for finished goods manufactured and cleared as Atraumatic Needles‛. Both the needl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of issue of SCN that only after fusing the suture thread would the needles cleared by them become an Atraumatic Needled Suture and that items cleared by them cannot be used as such and is complete only after attachment of the suture by another manufacturer. 5.5 In the event, while the cleared needles having vertical punch‛, may well be final goods for the appellants, it can only be considered as a part or accessory for the manufacturer who would eventually be manufacturing Atraumatic Needled Suture . 5.6 It therefore stands to reason that the impugned item being part / accessory of the Atraumatic Needled Suture required to be classified under CETH 9018, the said impugned goods would fall within the beneficial scope of Sl. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
