TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 80
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Phase - I, RIICO Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, under proviso to section 28 (i) of Customs Act, 1962 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') with interest thereon under Section 28AB of the Act. (iii) Penalty of Rs. 43,97,261/- was imposed under Section 114 A of the Act on M/s. Five Core Electronics Ltd. However, concession thereon was allowed subject to deposit of duty and interest thereon within thirty days from the date of communication of the adjudication order. Accordingly such penalty was worked out to be Rs. 10,99,315/- which is 25% of the duty amount. (iv) Penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- was imposed on Shri Amarjit Singh Kalra, Director of M/s. Five Core Electronics Ltd. under Section 112(b) of the Act. 2.1 It was held in adjudication that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lation of the condition of notification. 3.2 Appellant further submitted that a show cause notice was issued on 02/07/2008 in respect of the clearance made against the import of the period 01/05/2006-31/03/2007. Therefore when the import was within the knowledge of the authority, and use of imported goods in manufacture of exportable goods were also on record, there cannot be any suspicion as to the suppression of the facts. The activity of 'degaussing' and 'alignment' of CRT amounts to manufacture as is explained in page 50, para (ii) & (iii) of the adjudication order. Use of imported goods in such manufacture cannot be doubted when DTA sale was made as per permission. Assertion of revenue that the activity of degaussing did not amount ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able. 3.4 Ld. Counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of STL Exports Ltd. Vs. CC, Indore [2004 (164) ELT 179 (Tri. - Del.)] to submit that upon demand of central excise duty, there cannot be demand of custom duty in respect of the same product and for the same period under para - 7 of Notification No.53/97-Cus. Reliance was also placed on Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Weston Electronics Ltd. Vs. CC, Delhi-III [2001 (130) ELT 451 (Tri. - LB)] to submit that yamming process is fixing the deflection yoke with the picture and then adjusting them electronically to keep proper light rays on screen. This process amounts to manufacturing and a new and distinct article known in the market as t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r surface to make them better looking and further use. 4.2 Revenue precisely submits that degaussing does not amount to manufacture and cabinet re-painting is also not manufacture. 4.3 Heard both sides and perused the record. 5.1 Ld. Adjudicating Authority while examining the contentions of the appellant as well as the evidence on record has found that CPT and PMC were removed from DTA without carrying out any manufacture activity because the CPT and cabinet imported were not mentioned to be any raw-material in the Bill of Entry as well as invoices of the exporter. Degaussing does not amount to manufacture because it does not change the character and nature of the input. CPT itself were imported. Those were capable of performing their ow....