TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 954
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereafter disassembled and cleared to various units of the appellant company at different places. The other units reassembled and marketed the TV sets. The central issue involved in the dispute is whether or not such components which were manufactured and cleared by the main appellant are liable to be assessed as television receivers under CETH 8528 or parts of television receivers falling under CETH 8529. Various show cause notices were issued to the main appellant to demand and recover differential Central Excise duty by reclassifying the products cleared by the main appellant as television receivers. The demands were adjudicated and further appeals were filed. 2. At the outset the appellants submitted that in appeal No. E/53178 of 2014, the appellants are against order dated 28/02/2014 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi - II confirming Central Excise duty of Rs. 24,06,760.25 and Rs. 4,92,518/-. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that this appeal is not pressed on merit. The classification of the goods cleared by the main appellant has been settled in the appellant's own case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salora International Limited vs. CCE, New ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enalty on the main appellant as well as the Joint Managing Director and General Manager of the main appellant. 5. The learned AR contested the grounds of appeal. He submitted that the matter of classification of goods cleared by the main appellant has been settled by the Apex Court in appellant's own case. The appellants continued to follow the same modus-operandi of clearing sub-assemblies and chassis under CETH 8529 as parts and components of television receivers instead of following the correct classification under CETH 8528. The sub-assemblies, chassis and name labels and screws for assembly are all cleared together which makes it clear that the goods cleared have essential characters of television receiver sets and the appellants classified it under CETH 8529 only to avoid higher excise duty and also MRP based assessment. The learned AR submitted that the very same type of items cleared for exports were classified by the main appellant under CETH 8528 for claiming higher export benefits. Only for domestic clearance the appellants are following different classification. Regarding demand for extended period the learned AR submitted that the appellants misrepresented to the ef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ony India Ltd. (supra) may be distinguished in this respect. In that case, the assessee had imported different parts of television sets in 94 different consignments. The said parts were imported separately in bulk, and thereafter, the process of matching, numbering and assembling was carried out once they were in the possession of the assessee. Therefore, it may be seen that what the assessee had imported in that case were merely various parts which could not yet be identified and distinguished as individual Television Receivers such as the parts transported by the appellant in this case. The said decision is, therefore, distinguishable on facts. 28. For further clarification, it may also be stated that if the appellant had been in the practice of simply manufacturing and transporting parts of Television Receivers in bulk, while leaving the matching and numbering functions to be done at the satellite units, then it could have availed the benefit of Section Note 2, because in such a case, there would not have been any production of identifiable television sets such as in the present case. 29. Once the question of applicability of Section Note 2 to Section XVI of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eriod. Admittedly all the components and parts and chassis are numbered and are cleared with a required set of screws and name labels of the manufacturer. All the parts and components were numbered for a particular TV set and have clear identifiability which as observed by Apex Court will take away the goods from the classification as "parts". They will be classified as identifiable television receivers only. One more important aspect which adds to the strength of the case for Revenue is that the very same materials were cleared by the appellant for export classifying the same as television receivers under CETH 8528. They have claimed higher export benefits. When these items are cleared for their other satellite units for final assembling and marketing they have claimed classification as parts. Such dual approach for the same set of items is not tenable. This clearly strengthens the case of the Revenue for classification under CETH 8528. 9. We note that the impugned order dated 04/03/2014 covering the period 01/04/2002 to 30/04/2003, examined this issue in great detail. It is recorded that the show cause notice specifically brought out the fact that CTV sub-assembly and CT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e that the ratio of Nizam Sugar Factory (supra) will not apply to the present set of facts. In fact, it was appellants who claimed change in the facts to resist the demand for differential duty. Now they seek support on the ground the facts are same for all proceedings and, as such, repeat proceedings cannot be for extended period. We are not in agreement with such contradictory plea of the appellant. 11. In M.M. Cylinders (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Tirupathi - 2012 (277) E.L.T. 78 (Tri. - Bang.), the Tribunal was examining the sustainability of demand for extended period in the subsequent show cause notices. The Tribunal observed that when on further investigation new details were gathered through documents, registers etc. the issue cannot be treated as based on identical facts/evidences. The decision of the Tribunal was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2014 (302) E.L.T. A28 (S.C.). As already noted in the present case also it is the appellant who claimed variation in facts in order to not to pay differential Central Excise duty by classifying the impugned goods as parts. The proceedings which resulted in the impugned order dated 26/03/2014 started with a visit of the officers t....