TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (10) TMI 348
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....EL) got MTRs manufactured on job work basis with the components it supplied. These were cleared separately as well as along with the electronic push button telephones manufactured by ITEL. It is since settled vide Final Order No. 89-90/01 dated 24-1-01 of the Tribunal that assembling MTR from bought out components constitutes manufacture. 2. The department had issued the following show cause notices to recover duty on MTRs cleared by ITEL . Sl. No. SCN No. & date O-in-O No. & date Period Amount Rs. 1 280/96 dated 1-3-96 139/97 dated 25-4-97 8/95 to 10/95 4,45,111/- 2. 414/96 dated 9-4-96 139/97 dated 25-4-97 11/95 to 3/96 11,97,293/- 3. 906/96 dated 1-7-96 139/97 dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l component of the phone. As regards the demand made under SCNs at Sl. Nos. 1 and 4 of the table above, the input credit taken by it had been reversed and therefore, they were not to be treated as manufacturer. They had been held to be manufacturer as they had supplied credit availed components as a principal manufacturer in terms of Rule 57F of CER. These notices classified MTR under CSH 8536.90. The stand of the Commissioner (A) that assessment of MTR during the period was provisional for the reason that telephones were under provisional assessment was not legal. If telephones of CH 8517 were under provisional assessment, MTRs of CSH 8536.90 did not automatically come under provisional assessment as held in the impugned order. Therefore t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....E, Baroda v. M.M. Khambatwala reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.), in a case of similar facts where raw materials were supplied to household ladies who manufactured agarbathis, dhup etc., the Apex Court held that the household ladies were the manufacturers and not the supplier of raw materials. The Apex Court also noted the judgments in the case of Empire Industries Ltd. [1985 (20) E.L.T. 179 (S.C.)] and Ugajar Prints [1988 (38) E.L.T. 535 (S.C.)] to hold that suppliers of raw material were not the manufacturers. Therefore, in the instant case, ITEL cannot be held to be manufacturer of MTRs got assembled by job workers. The question whether the MTR is a part of telephone manufactured and cleared by ITEL, there is no dispute that telepho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....one for assessment. Demand of duty on MTRs during the period covered by the notices other than those at Sl. No. 1 and 4 is therefore not sustainable. 7. Assessee has argued that these two SCNs are barred by limitation whereas the impugned order held that the assessment of phones was provisional and therefore limitation did not apply. As regards this finding that the two show cause notices dated 2-8-1996 and 1-3-96 were not time-barred as the telephones were under provisional assessment, neither party has shown us an order issued under Rule 9B of CER ordering provisional assessment of MTR, pending decision on the dispute whether value of MTR is to be included in the value of telephone or whether MTR is excisable. As rightly argued by the ....