9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Shri R. Raghavan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri K. Sambi Reddi, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - The appellant has filed appeals against the following Orders whose particulars are given below. Appeal No. Impugned order/date Amount of duty Amount of penalty E/1104/2005 O.I.A No. 142/2005 (H-III) C.E. dated 29-7-2005 Not determined E/1131/2005 O.I.O. No. 12/2005-Commr. dated 12-7-2005 Rs. 7,43,598/- Rs. 25,000/- The appellants are highly aggrieved over the impugned orders, therefore, they have come before this Tribunal for relief. 2. Shri R. Raghavan, l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Commissioner, which required the appellant to discharge duty liability on the basis of A.C.P. which applied only to Hot rolled products which are classifiable under Chapter 72. The appellants approached the CEGAT, Chennai and CEGAT, Chennai remanded the matter to the Original Authority with certain directions. It has also been recorded that in a similar case relating to a unit at Chennai, the Commissioner (A) had held that similar products manufactured by M/s. Wheels India Ltd. was not covered under the compounded levy scheme, as they are only automobile parts. It is stated that the said Order-in-Appeal has not been appealed against and has become final. In the Tribunal's remand, there is reference to the decision of the Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant that their products are not identical to those manufactured by M/s. Pickfab Engineers of Chennai, is not the proper approach. It is also seen that the department had not appealed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 38/99 dated 25-2-99 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai with reference to M/s. Pickfab Engineers who are also job workers of M/s. Wheels India Ltd. The Commissioner (A), Chennai has gone through the facts very carefully and has given a very reasoned order discussing as to why the said items would not be covered under the compounded levy scheme. Para 8, 9 and 10 of the said order are reproduced below because they are very relevant for this case, as the products manufactured by the appellants and the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Rs. 7,450/- per M.T. is added. Consequently, sale price is not comparable with the price of hot rolled products like angles, channels, etc., which are sold at Rs. 13,000/- per M.T. The appellants have also pointed out that the Assistant Commissioner has agreed that the appellants have been doing the job work since 1986 and therefore, the products are not sold outside directly. 10. I find force in the pleadings of the appellants as above. It is an admitted fact that M/s. Wheels India have been permitted to send out billets on payment of 10% of the sale price as required under 57F(4) and on receipt of the products after job work from the appellants, they are using the same as processed components in the assembly of wheels. Their point th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
