1999 (9) TMI 280

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....heir Bangalore Factory, steam turbines and transported the same to the work site. Other items like alternators, ACB Panels, Inventors etc. were purchased from the market and sent to the site for assembly. The work was completed and the TAS commissioned in October, 1994. A show cause notice was issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna on 5-2-1997 demanding duty of Central Excise on the TAS and under the order impugned in this appeal, duty demanded in the show cause notice (over Rs. 20 Lakhs) has been confirmed. Various penalties, demand for interest on the duty demanded and confiscation of the TAS in question have also been ordered under the said order. 2. The appellants have challenged the order on time bar, jurisdiction ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt is not attracted. The adjudicating authority has held that Proviso to Section 11A(1) was involved as the appellant had not taken out Central Excise Registration. This finding is not correct as the appellant did not take out licence only because of the previous order of the Commissioner, Central Excise that no duty was payable and not because of any intention to suppress the facts or to clandestinely manufacture the TAS. The appellants have submitted that the show cause notice has been issued by the Department only on account of the decision of the CEGAT in the case of M/s. Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 238 holding that assembly of TAS is manufacture and attracts l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of TAS remained unknown to the Central Excise authorities of local jurisdiction. The orders of the Bangalore Commissioner (Appeal) etc. were not relevant as assessees are required to obtain licence from the jurisdictional authorities in respect of each place of manufacture. The letter of M.P. Udyog to Supdt., Betttiah is also not relevant as that letter was addressed by the appellants buyer and not by the appellant. Information furnished by a third party would not absolve the appellants of their responsibility under law. 7.  We have perused the records of the case and have considered the rival submissions. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore had passed an order in the appellants' own case in 1990 that assembly of TAS doe....