9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pair of CPTs did not amount to manufacture. We have also perused the letter dated 23-5-2001 and as has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent, it nowhere gives information to the revenue as to using of goods imported on concessional rate of duty for such repair work. In fact, such concessional rate of duty was applicable on imported parts only for the purpose of manufacture of excisable goods - Repair activity though may be given any shape or form as mentioned by learned counsel for the appellant including complete dismantling, will not amount to manufacture. The substantial question of law so framed is decided against the appellant and there is no apparent error in the impugned orders - appeal dismissed. - C.E.A. No. 1 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 24-4-2019 - Sanjay Yadav and Vivek Agarwal, JJ. Shri Prashant Sharma, Learned Counsel, for the Appellant. Shri Praveen Surange, Learned Counsel, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 being aggrieved of Final Order No. C/A/52841/2015-CU (DB), dated 12-8-2015 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount equal to the CENVAT credit taken under sub-rule (1) and in any other case the manufacturer shall pay duty on goods received under sub-rule (1) at the rate applicable on the date of removal and on the value determined under sub-section (2) of section 3 or section 4 or section 4A of the Act, as the case may be. Explanation. - The amount paid under this sub-rule shall be allowed as CENVAT credit as if it was a duty paid by the manufacturer who removes the goods. (3) If there is any difficulty in following the provisions of sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2), the assessee may receive the goods for being re-made, refined, re-conditioned or for any other reason and may remove the goods subsequently subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be. (iii) Appellant was issued show cause notice No.VIII(Cus) 15-01/2009/Adj-l, dated 25-3-2009 contending that appellant was receiving the old CPTs under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and repairing the same in addition to manufacture of CPTs. The repairing of old CPTs does not amount to manufacture, and therefore, appellant used the goods im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anufacture of goods, and therefore, the terminology re manufacturing deployed for repairs will not attract any concession under notification No. 25/99-Cus., dated 28-2-1999. It is also submitted that appellant never informed the department vide communication dated 23-5-2001 that appellant is undertaking repairs using goods imported on concessional rate of duty, and therefore, it cannot be said that department was informed way back in 2001 about using of such imported parts for the purpose of repairs. He supports the impugned orders dated 20-3-2010/26-3-2010 and that of the Appellate Tribunal dated 12-8-2015. 6. As per rule 16 repair activity undertaken by the appellant did not amount to manufacture, and therefore, the goods used for repair of CPTs were not eligible for concessional rate of duty under notification No. 25/99-Cus., dated 28-2-1999 as that exemption is available only for such goods which were used for the manufacture of finished goods. In fact, as per the appellant s own case in Hotline CPT Ltd. V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore as reported in 2004 (172) E.L.T. 236 (Tri.-Del.), CESTAT in paras 7 and 8 has held that the activity of repair of CPTs did no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vaccumisation of CPTs after mounting and sealing of electron guns. The appellant has also contended that the entire demand is barred by limitation. 7. We have also perused the letter dated 23-5-2001 and as has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent, it nowhere gives information to the revenue as to using of goods imported on concessional rate of duty for such repair work. In fact, such concessional rate of duty was applicable on imported parts only for the purpose of manufacture of excisable goods. Repair activity though may be given any shape or form as mentioned by learned counsel for the appellant including complete dismantling, will not amount to manufacture as has been held by CESTAT in 2004 (172) E.L.T. 236 (Tri.-Del.) (supra). Thus, it is apparent that in the light of 2004 (172) E.L.T. 236 (Tri.-Del.) (supra) appellant was aware of the fact that repair will not amount to manufacture and concessional rate of duty on goods imported could be used only for manufacture of excisable goods, still it used goods for repair and did not furnish accurate information to the revenue and when such information was sought by issuance of show-cause notice, it indulged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an the CPTs are, if required sent to salvage section otherwise issued on line for removing the defects which may be electrical or electronic or mechanical in nature. (4) Thus, CPTs are put in main stream of production. And after completion of the process, these are packed. Accordingly, to the packing list stock entries are made in the stock register. (5) whenever the goods are cleared duty is paid. From the above it may be seen that we are not keeping track on defective CPTs received and issued to the stream of production. Further on receipt of the defective CPTs the party s A/C is credited and whenever goods (CPTs) are sent to the said party its account is debited. Evident it is that nowhere it is mentioned that the process of removing the defects which may be electrical or electronic or mechanical in nature involves use of any of the imported parts enjoying concession under notification No. 25/99-Cus., dated 28-2-1999, and therefore, the aforesaid judgment as reported in 2015 (318) E.L.T. 141 (Tri.-Del.) is distinguishable and is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Even otherwise, order passed in the case of 2004 (172) E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
