TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (8) TMI 1029
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a like sum as penalty under Section 173Q besides penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on Shri B.S. Raman, Director of the Gas Filtration Engineering. Besides a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed on P.J. Muralidharn, Director of Gas Filtration Engineering. Hence, all of them have filed their appeals. The main issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the appellants have brought into existence movable and excisable items for the purpose of dutiability. Their contention is that they manufacture demisters and candle filters which are about 70 metres in length and they are affixed on the chimneys. The chimney which is in working condition has to be shut down and made to cool. Thereafter, the old demisters and candle filters are removed and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made several contentions which have been recorded in the order. They contend that the Commissioner has not given full thought to all their submissions and has passed a cryptic order which is not in detail and examination of facts. The findings recorded is not sustainable and requires to be set aside. They further plead that Commissioner has based his findings on Tribunal judgments rendered in the case of Festo Controls (P) Ltd. [1994 (72) E.L.T. 919 (T)]; Sonomo Aromatics (P) Ltd. [1995 (78) E.L.T. 285 (Tribunal) = 1995 (56) ECR 54 (T)] and Indian Reprographics (P) Ltd. [1995 (75) E.L.T. 112 (T)]. In all these cases the brand name was affixed on the goods, while in their case, no such affixing was done. They have filed before us the followi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ravindra Textiles v. CCE [1992 (60) E.L.T. 481 (T)] (2) B.R. Sule v. U.O.I. [1990 (48) E.L.T. 343-HC-Bom.] (3) ITC Ltd. v. CCE [1992 (59) E.L.T. 163 (T)] The appellants also relied on the following judgments :- (1) Forest Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Belgaum [1996 (83) E.L.T. 570 (Tribunal) = 1996 (12) RLT 338 - CEGAT-SRB] (2) Brisk Surgical Cotton v. CCE, Ahmedabad [1999 (105) E.L.T. 226 (Tribunal) = 1998 (29) RLT49-CEGAT] (3) Vimal Printery & Co. v. CCE, Vadodara [1999 (110) E.L.T. 980 (Tribunal) = 1999 (31) RLT - 22-CEGAT] (4) Winsome Drill v. CCE, Indore [1999 (32) RLT 340 - CEGAT]....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....voices wherein all the three items are referred. He contends that the order is based on facts and each case on judgment referred on the basis of examination of facts. He submits that the departmental officials when they questioned the appellants and took statements, they had clearly indicated that the segments were cleared from the factory by issue of invoices. Therefore, they are goods and at the time of clearance of the item from the factory gate. Therefore, based on the evidence collected by the Revenue, the Commissioner has analysed and held the items to be goods and that they are not entitled to the benefit of Notification. 6. The Consultant further contends that there were large number of Tribunal judgments holding that these ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue consideration, taken a view that the aspect pertaining to analyses of facts and that the matter requires total consideration of the facts and it can only be done by the original authority and have in turn remanded to the original authority for de novo consideration. We notice that the main plea of the appellants that they were clearing segments and not the complete goods (demisters and candle filters) has not been considered by the ld. Commissioner. Ld. Commissioner ought to have examined their plea that the item being demisters and candle filters come into existence on erection in the chimney and not at the time when segments are removed from their factory. He has considered segments to be the final product and held them to be marketabl....