TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (7) TMI 274
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red to the factory at Chem- bur by the appellants, where it is processed to make various drinks marketed as "Mangola". The remaining part is sold at the factory at Pune to outsiders. 2.1 Question involved herein is whether the appellants' goods transferred by them to their factory at Chembur are to be classified under Tariff sub-heading 2001.90, as contended by the appellants or under sub-heading 2001.10, as contended by the Revenue. In order to understand the controversy at hand we reproduce the relevant sub-headings :- Heading No. Sub-heading No. Description of goods. Rate of duty (1) (2) (3) (4) 20.01 Preparations of vegetables, fruit, nuts or other parts of plants, including jams, fruit jellies, marmalades, fruit or nut ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 30-10-1986 holding that it was a sale became final. As a result, the department on introduction of the new Tariff meanwhile w.e.f. 1-3-1986 had dropped its earlier decision because it had taken up the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. Later on, however, it issued show cause notice dated 13-10-1988 for the period 1-4-1988 to 5-10-1988 demanding duty on the said products treating them as sale under Tariff sub-heading 2001.10. It is this demand of duty which has been confirmed by the lower authorities which is in dispute before us. 3.1 Learned Advocate, Shri M.P. Devnath submits that the definition of Sale given in Section 2 (h) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 requires transfer of property from one person to another before a sale....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ust kept quite and did not take any action. 3.4 Opposing the contention learned JDR, Shri A.M. Tilak submits that the correspondence relied upon by the learned Advocate was of the period when this issue was subjudice before the authority i.e. Commissioner (Appeals), Bombay when he passed the order on 30-10-1986 upholding the contention of the appellants herein that the transaction between the Pune and Chembur Units is one of sale. He further submits that keeping in view only the dispute persisting between the department and the appellants for a long time, the Revenue has asked for a demand of only for six months and not beyond the period of six months as permissible under Section 11-A. 3.5 On the main question whether it is a sa....