2016 (10) TMI 734

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Shri Rupesh Kumar, Advocate for the appellant Shri G.R. Singh, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent ORDER Per. B. Ravichandran The present appeal is against order dated 09/10/2006 of Commissioner (Appeals), Meerut I. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various excisable goods. The present case relates to 10 nos. of  Super Rapid Gun Mount  (SRGM) manu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tiated against appellant vide show cause notice dated 07/4/2004 for finalization of provisional assessment and alleging that the appellant had been clearing various assemblies, components etc. (CETH 9305.00) without payment of duty. The notice proposed duty demand of Rs. 30,53,16,136/- on assemblies, components or sections etc. of SRGM. The case was adjudicated by the Jurisdictional Deputy Commiss....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ecided the appeal by Revenue. Vide the impugned order dated 09/10/2006 he held that the assessee is required to discharge duty on all individual parts/sub-assemblies which were used in combination with other parts/components to manufacture the complete SRGMs. 5. Appellant filed the present appeal before us against this order. We have heard both the sides and perused records. Though appellants c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....red parts/components/ sub-assemblies is not contested by appellants. In fact it has been their claim that they have correctly discharged duty on all these manufactured and captively consumed items. Apparently no duty is payable on bought out items. Similarly, there can be no question duty liability when the SRGMs were imported and supplied directly from port to shipyards. 7. We have also noted ....