TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (8) TMI 255
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the notice, or should be considered as industrial Sewing Machines with "In-Built" motors as proposed in the show cause notice. (ii) The Crank Shafts manufactured and cleared by the said notice as well as the Waste & Scrap generated during the manufacturing process and cleared by the said noticee are liable for duty of excise duty and if so, whether they are eligible for SSI exemption. (iii) The goods cleared by the said noticee without payment of duty is to be held liable for confiscation under the provisions of Rule-25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002." After considering the submissions made by the appellants, he has held that the bag closer machines and industrial sewing machines manufactured by the appellants cannot be considered as industrial sewing machines other than those with "In-Built" motors eligible for exemption under Notification No. 6/2002 dated 1-3-2002. He also held that the crank shafts manufactured and cleared and also the waste and scrap generated during the manufacture process and cleared are liable for excise duty. He also upheld the liability to confiscation. Further, he demanded interest as applicable and imposed penalty equal to the duty amount demanded un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....only. He also submitted that the Commissioner had actually reproduced the brochures in his order. He submits that the stand taken by the Commissioner that the meaning of inbuilt motor does not mean that motor cannot be connected with the help of V-belt and pulley. The Commissioner has observed that the electric motor is an essential part of the original machine and it is an integral and essential part and is designed in such a way that the sewing machine cannot be operated without the electric motors. He also submits that electric motor is supplied as a separate package and is not even manufactured by the appellants, but purchased from other parties. He also submits that the motors are supplied separately and in some cases motors are visible and detachable. But the Commissioner has observed that even where it is visible and detachable it is still forming part as an integral and essential part of the machine. The Commissioner has also observed that electric motor is not required to be inbuilt in sewing head but the sewing machine. 4. The learned DR on the other hand submits that the decision of the Tribunal in Harichand Anand case relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lt and pulley. 7.2 We find considerable force in the argument advanced by the learned advocate that the same issue had come up before the Tribunal in Bangalore in Harichand Anand case. The first and second paragraphs of the order cited above makes it clear hence the same are reproduced. "This Revenue's appeal arises from the Order-in-Appeal No. 170/2006, dated 14-12-2006 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the Order-in-Original No. 43/2006, dated 13-7-2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Bangalore and held that the assessee is eligible for the benefit of Notification Nos. 21/2002-Cus. And 6/2006-C.E. in respect of 04 Nos. of Industrial sewing machines. The Notification No. 6/06-C.E. exempts only sewing machines other than those with inbuilt motors. The importer took the stand that these machines were without inbuilt motors and that in an inbuilt machine the motors are built on the main shaft of the machines and motors cannot be separated from the sewing head. It was further clarified that motor has been imported along with the sewing machine; that motor is not at all connected to the machine and it runs the machine by a v-belt; that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dicated that the driving pulley of the sewing machine is connected to the power source i.e. motor by a belt. Since the motor is connected to the sewing machine externally by means of a belt and not directly the Conference concluded that the machines are of the type other than those with inbuilt motors and are rightly eligible for the benefit of exemption contained in notification No. 5/99-C.E., dated 28-2-99." 7.4 Learned DR argued that the reply given by the Board to the audit para is not relevant and not conclusive. But he was not able to show that the reply was rejected by PAC and subsequently the decision was modified. In the absence of any such indication, we have to assume that the reply to the audit para reflects the stand taken by the government and has not been changed thereafter. The learned DR fairly admitted that he has no information as to the final conclusion of the C&AS on the issue. 7.5 The learned DR also contended that reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court by the Tribunal was misplaced in view of the fact that the Hon'ble High Court was considering the issue as to whether a particular product is a domestic electric appliance or not. The issue....