2010 (1) TMI 1036

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ry reported in 2008 (225) E.L.T. 485 (Tri.) = 2008 (85) RLT 380. Both sides now agree that the issue in the present case are not the same as the matter referred to the Larger Bench in the case of Panasonic Battery Ltd. (supra). 3.1 The respondent, inter alia, manufacture Lead Anode Sheets and Lead Headers and use these items captively for manufacture of Zinc. The nature of activities in relation to manufacture of the above items are recorded in paras 12 and 13 in the order of the Original Authority, which are reproduced below :- "12. They were, inter alia, engaged in the manufacture of zinc ingots and lead ingots. For the manufacture of zinc, they adopt various processes and one of the process is the electrolysis process by which zinc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....isability of Lead Anode Sheets and Lead Headers, confined the demand to Rs. 7,81,633/- in relation to only Lead Headers. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 Lakhs on the respondent. Commissioner (Appeals), taking into account that the respondent have totally paid a sum of Rs. 16,34,632/- in respect of both Lead Anode Sheets and Lead Headers during the disputed period and that the duty payable on Headers was only Rs. 8,65,082/-, adjusted the differential duty demand attributable to Lead Headers amounting to Rs. 7,81,633/- and held that no further demand survive and no penalty was imposable. Hence, the Department is in appeal. 4. Ld. SDR produced attested copy of three show cause notices for records. He submitted that though the show cause....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d on the Lead Anode Sheet. Therefore, he seeks upholding of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). He also submits that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indus Engg. Company is on different set of facts, which, inter alia, involved the issue as to whether the value of erection and commissioning charges as well as third party inspection charges of the items in assessment should be treated as part of assessable value and whether the said issue can be agitated and whether such demand can be adjusted towards demand involving re-classification of the same product. Ld. Advocate also submitted that at any rate, the Lead Header were manufactured on job work basis and differential duty, if any, should have been demanded from the job work....