2000 (5) TMI 312

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er Rule 173Q of C.E. Rules, 1944. 4,650 nos. of PVC pipes cut to size were seized on the ground that they were parts of vacuum cleaner. However, the same were granted redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 1000/-. 2. The department proceeded against the appellants on the premises that they were manufacturing the PVC tubes, conduit pipes, LDPE lay flat tubing and films/rolls/sheets of LDPE. They were getting orders from M/s. Facit Asia Ltd. for supply of vacuum cleaner parts and the same were supplied without taking out licence and paying duty thereon. Therefore, on raid to the factory, 4650 nos. of these pipes measuring 470 mm. in length, 35 mm. dia and 2 mm wall thickness besides a quantity of LDPE film/sheets in rolls weighing 1260.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and was required to have been classified under 8509 of CET Act and as the same had not been done and no duty had been paid on clearances, therefore, Rule 9(2) read with Section 11A of CE Act was invoked and duty was invoked and duty was confirmed and penalty levied. 4. Arguing for the appellants, ld. Counsel submits that they were merely supplying the tubings and pipings in cut forms as is clearly indicated from the seized goods and noted in the Mahazar. It is his contention that the goods in cut form cannot be used as parts of vacuum cleaner unless they undergo the process of narrowing one end of the pipes and broadening of pipes on the other side besides bending, making holes in the body of pipes to make it fit as parts of vacuum....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cleaner. M/s. Facit Asia were clearly placing orders for supply of parts of vacuum cleaner and therefore evidences disclosed that what was supplied was parts of vacuum cleaner and they were classifiable under chapter heading 85.09 and hence liable to duty. He submits that appellants have not taken out licence and had been making clearances without paying duty. Therefore, larger period was invokable including imposition of penalty. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions made and on perusal of the records, we notice that there is no admission made by Shri N. Sivakumar, Accountant of M/s. Facit Asia Ltd., or Shri K.D. Agarwal, Supervisor of the appellants factory that appellants were carrying out process of converting cut flat ....