TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (5) TMI 493
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emanding the issue de novo to the adjudicating authority. The CEGAT in the above said order while remanding the case has observed the following: "24On a total consideration of the facts and circumstances in this case, we are of the considered opinion that although the order appears to be lengthy and gives an impression of application of mind but, however, it is seen that it needs verification of records and clearances of each of the years has not been checked thoroughly. Such an exercise could be done only by the original authority. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original authority for verification of all the original documents produced by the appellants and duty paying nature of the documents and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dduced the following arguments : (i) With regard to the seizure of 141 no. of PCBs on 17-11-1986 the duty on them has already been paid when the equipment was cleared. The fact that the goods would be removed in part on 31-3-1986 and balance would be cleared subsequently has been intimated to the Range Superintendent on 28-3-1986. Moreover, certificates have been produced from M/s. HAL and M/s. BEL to the effect that they had not received the items under seizure earlier. In other words, they confirmed the fact that the items under seizure were part of the goods cleared previously and on which duty burden had been discharged. The learned Commissioner has rejected the certificates issued by HAL and BEL without....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....letter dated 29-1-86 informed M/s. HAL that the goods manufactured for defence purposes are exempted in terms of Notification No. 95/77, dated 25-5-1977 and consequently they are not required to take out licence or follow 57C procedure. Even as per Notification No. 184/86, dated 1-3-1986 the goods produced for HAL, BEL, Bharat Dynamics and National Instruments Ltd. are exempted. This position has been clarified by Trade Notice No. 53/92, dated 8-7-92 and also Chairman's letter dated 27-1-1992. The goods manufactured by sub-contractors are also eligible for exemption. Therefore, the demand for duty on these goods produced on job work basis amounting to Rs. 42,768/- is not maintainable. (v) As regards the liability ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C. Hence the value of the clearances cannot be included. (viii) As regards for the liability for the year 1986-87, it was submitted that spares, installation and warranty replacement amounting to Rs. 41,32,171.40 have already suffered duty under Gate Pass Nos. 14 and 15, dated 31-3-86 and hence duty cannot be demanded for the second time. (ix) The entire demand is time-barred. The letter dated 28-3-86 addressed to Superintendent of Central Excise, Bangalore clearly reveals the fact of removal in instalments. Moreover, the fact of availing the job work procedure under erstwhile 56C has been clearly mentioned. All these classification lists have been approved. Besides the AC, Hyderabad has clearly written to HAL ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... find that the revenue has not verified the certificates at HAL and BEL. If the revenue wants to reject the certificates they should have conducted further investigations into the matter. Since the certificates have been issued by officers at a fairly senior level and also in view of the fact that the goods are meant for defence, there is no sufficient ground, in our view to reject the same. Hence we hold that the duty burden on the goods seized on 17-11-1986 has already been discharged. The appellants have also made a strong case regarding the computation of the value of clearances for the year 1982-83. According to them the value of goods cleared in 1981-82 has been included wrongly in the clearances of 1982-83. They have substantiated th....