TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (10) TMI 348
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asis 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 dated 25-4-97 4/96 to 6/96 5,57,820/- 4. 1001/96 dated 2-8-96 139/97 dated 25....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 the SCN dated 2-8-96 was entirely barred by limitation. Notice dated 1-3-96 was time-barred except for a month as longer period could not be invoked. 5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 telephone can function without MTR. MTR only facilitates connection of the phone to the external line like a plug connecting TV set to the mains. The telephone ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see 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 assessee, MTR of CSH 8536.90 as per the SCN cannot be held to have been under provisional assessment for the reason that telephones of CH 8517 was under provisio....