TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 781
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Commissioner of Central Excise Meerut-II. Therefore, they are taken together for decision. 2. The present proceedings are in compliance to the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, through order dated 23 March, 2017 in Central Excise Appeal No.112 of 2017 and order dated 11 May, 2017 in Central Excise Appeal No.147 of 2017 and order dated 11 May, 2017 in Central Excise Appeal No.148 of 2017. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant- M/s Xerox India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to M/s Xerox) were engaged in the manufacture of Photocopier. They were also engaged in the trading of Digital Multifunctional Printers, Copiers, Photocopiers-cum-Printers and Photo Receptors-cum-Printers. They were having their factory at Rampur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n respect of goods covered by this Section, conversion of an article which is incomplete or unfinished but having the essential character of the complete or finished article (including blank that is an article, not ready for direct use, having the approximate shape or outline of the finished article or part, and which can only be used, other than in exceptional cases, for completion into a finished article or a part) into complete or finished article shall amount to manufacture". 4. It was alleged in the said show cause notice that various components were imported and various components were indigenously procured and they were subjected to process of kitting and in view of said Section Note 6 the activity amounted to manufacture. Further t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has approximate shape or outline of the finished article and such blanks on having worked upon can be used and such finishing process amounts to manufacture. They contended that the goods in questions were imported as Printer-cum-Copier under Heading No. 84.71 and CVD duty equal to the Excise Duty has also been paid while importing such goods and contended that the goods were complete as Printer-cum-Copier at the time of import in equal number of modules and they had undertaken only a simple process of integration and installation of them at the site of customers and their activity did not attract invocation of Section Note 6 of Section XVI of said Tariff Act. M/s Xerox also submitted that they had assembled the disassembled machines and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....28.11.2008 and held in Para 19.2.8 that Kitting also included the activities which amounts to assembly of machines and he has also held that activity undertaken for refurbishing act at Jolly Godown was also manufacture and he confirmed the demand of Rs. 14,87,79,835/- and Rs. 37,27,424/- and imposed equal penalty. Further he appropriated the amount of Rs. 37,27,424/- paid by M/s Xerox on 29.03.2006. The Original Authority imposed penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on Shri S.K. Gupta under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rs. 1 Lakh on Shri A.K. Srivastava under the same Rule. Aggrieved by the said order appellants preferred present appeals before this Tribunal. The said appeals were decided by this Tribunal through Final Order Nos. 815-817/201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court through above referred three orders dated 23.03.2017, 11.05.2017 and 11.05.2017 set aside this Tribunals Final Order dated 29.11.2016 and remanded the matter to this Tribunal with a direction to decide the appeal on merits. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel had submitted that in the proceeding, it has clearly been established that the activity at Rampur and activity at Hyderabad were similar in so far as the allegations of manufacture by invoking Section Note 6 was concerned and in view of earlier order of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Bangalore, the impugned order needs to be set aside and in respect of another issue of refurbishing he ha....