9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture in view of the provisions of Note 6 of Section XVI of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 3. The contention of the appellant is that they are importing complete pagers and no programming is done in their factory. There are only repacking and relabelling the imported pager and this activity does not amount to manufacture. The contention is that revenue is only relying upon the statement of Shri S.K. Kaul, General Manager of the appellant whereby he submitted that the imported pagers are brought into the factory for programming, labelling and packing of stickers. The contention is that the General Manager retracted his statement in reply to SCN whereby he submitted that the statement was rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that as they had imported the pagers which are to be programmed and after programming the pagers are being activated as per the Note 6 of Section XVI of Central Excise Act, 1985 "conversion of an article which is incomplete or unfinished but having the essential character of the complete or finished article including 'blank' that is an article, not ready for use, having the approximate shape or outline of the finished article or part, and which can only be used, other than in exceptional cases, for completion into the finished article or part, into complete of finished article shall amount to manufacture. The contention is that the imported pagers cannot be used as such without programming and after programming in the factory as admitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts and circumstances of the case, the penalty is reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs. In respect of personal penalties, there is no evidence on record which shows omission or commission with intent to evade payment of duty on the part of the Director as well as on the G.M. Therefore, penalties imposed on the Director and G.M. are set aside and appeals are disposed of as indicated above. 6. The Revenue also filed an appeal against the impugned order whereby the value of clearance was treated as cum-duty price. We find that this issue is already settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. - 2002 (141) E.L.T. 3. In view of the above, we find no merit in the impugned appeal of the revenue, the same is dismissed. - - TaxTMI - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
