2001 (10) TMI 667

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the duty demand in all these three appeals by invoking the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each and Rs. 5000/- on M/s. Andal & Co. The appellants claimed they have cleared rough castings to their customers and the appellants case is that the customers have carried out the processing of machining and used them as powerlooms spare parts. The Appellants pointed out to the Commissioner from the various statement of the witnesses and purchasers of these castings that they had carried out the machining and what they had supplied was only casting and not finished goods for invoking Interpretative Rules 2(a) and the item cannot be considered as powerlooms. They also pointed out to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t these facts were known to the department as the Commissioner (Appeals) had dropped the proceedings in the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 69 to 71/87 (CBE), dt. 10-4-1987. The ld. Counsel pleads that there is no suppression in the matter. He relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Jyothi Malleables (P) Ltd. v. CCE, [Trichy reported in 2001 (130) E.L.T. 718 (T)] wherein this Bench following the ratio of the decision rendered in the case of Shivaji Works Ltd. v. CCE. reported in 1994 (69) E.L.T. 674 (T) has upheld the assessees plea that they had cleared only rough castings and the items cannot be treated as finished goods. The ld. Counsel also relied on the judgment rendered in the case of CCE, Mumbai v. Haldyn Glass Ltd. reported in 1999 (114....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... customers. All these customers have categorically stated that they had purchased castings and had installed in their powerloom after machining. The facts of customers carrying out the activity of machining is supported by the order rendered by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 69-71/87 (CBE), dt. 10-4-87. Further we notice that the Commissioner, in the impugned order, has proceeded to apply the Interpretative Rule 2(a), to come to the conclusion that the item cleared by the appellants is powerlooms. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with in great detail by the Tribunal in the case of Shivaji Works Ltd. (supra) and Apex Steel Pvt. Ltd. In both the judgements, after detailed consideration, the Tribunal has categor....