TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 653
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that the department accepted the respondent s status as a manufacturer in respect of the parts of DG sets cleared to DTA and independent buyers, whereas, for the clearances of same goods to EOU, the respondent has been held to be not a manufacturer alleging that the goods processed are cleared as such, and not used to manufacture final products. The Commissioner (Appeals) also held that the demand is hit by time bar whereas there is sufficient ground for invoking the extended period of limitation. The respondent has removed the subject goods namely fuel tank, panel cabinet RTU cabinet supplied by a company called M/s. Control Systems, Pondichery and silencers supplied by M/s. Nelson Engine Syste....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, CEO of the respondent-assessee made detailed arguments referring to the impugned order. He stressed upon the point that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly concluded that the show cause notice is hit by limitation. The respondent had been filing returns regularly and the goods were removed to the EOU under CT3 certificate and therefore the entire facts were within the knowledge of the department. Apart from a mere allegation that the respondent suppressed facts, there is nothing brought out from the record to show that the respondent is guilty of suppression of facts. The respondent had been making repeated communications with the department on the issue. Further, for the period June 2006 to March 2007, vide Order-in-Original No. 36/2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the respondent has to be awarded damages. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. The allegation of the department is that the subject goods namely base frame fitted with engines or alternators, fuel tank and acoustic enclosures and base frame fitted with engine, alternator fuel tank and acoustic enclosures cleared to 100% EOU are not goods manufactured by respondent. According to department, the goods have been procured on the basis of invoices and the goods have been cleared as such since the activity of fitting of the base frame with acoustic enclosure etc. does not amount to manufacture. As rightly pointed out by the respondent as well as the discussions made by the Commissioner (Appeals), the department has taken contradicto....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the earlier period, when the very same allegation has been raised by the department and the respondent has been consistently contending and explaining the manufacturing process, why no report was called for and a conclusion was arrived by merely relying upon the invoices. Therefore, since for the very same goods, after visit to the factory for the period 2006 07, the department having accepted that the process in the factory amounted to manufacture and also for the reason that clearances of the subject goods to independent buyers and DTA units are undisputedly made on payment of duty, the allegation that the activity does not amount to manufacture when very same goods are cleared to 100% EOU is not justified. We also fully agree with th....