9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... horities below vide which they had confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 2,53,052/- and have imposed personal penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the findings that during the period from 21-3-95 to 31-3-95 and 6-10-95 to 13-11-95, the appellants had manufactured and cleared the various parts of the furnace by wrongly classifying the same under Tariff Heading 8417.10. 2. Shri Abhijit Saha, ld. Consultant arg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnace but have only manufactured the parts of the furnace. He relies on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Vinar Systems Ltd. reported in 2001 (131) E.L.T. 372 (Tribunal) wherein under identical circumstances, the appellants' stay petition was allowed. 3. We have also heard Shri A.K. Mondal, ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue who reiterates the reasoning of the authorities below. He submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her that they have paid duty on the value of the entire furnace inclusive of the bought out items he replies in negative. He submits that there is no liability on the part of the appellants to pay duty on the bought out goods, which have already discharged the duty burden. 5. We find that the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Delhi v. BHP Engineers reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 599 (Tribunal) = 2000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be classified as parts under sub-heading 8431.00. In that case, the appellants were manufacturing only the component parts of conveyor belts and the other items were being bought by them from the open market. The component parts being manufactured by the appellants on clearance from their factory, were being assembled and erected at site of the customer along with bought out items and were bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
