TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 7
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore, they are taken together for decision. 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Indo Asian Fusegear Ltd. (IAFL for short) were manufacturers of CFL lamps. At their Noida unit, they undertook manufacture of CFL lamps to some extent and remaining process of manufacture on the same goods were carried out at their Haridwar Unit. At Noida unit glass tubes were coated with the tri-band phosphorous filled with mixture of argon and mercury vapour. The glass tube was bent on both ends and also sealed. Inside the said glass tubes at their ends tungsten filament was connected to the lead in wire outside at both the ends. At that stage the partially processed goods were shifted or transferred to Haridwar unit on stock transfer basis. At Harid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....covering a period from 01.03.2006 to 30.11.2007 demanding Central Excise duty of Rs. 51,50,217/-. 2^nd show cause notice was issued on 07.01.2009 for the period from 01.01.2007 to 30.09.2008 demanding Central Excise duty of Rs. 8,51,920/- and the 3^rd show cause notice was issued on 30.09.2010 covering a period from 01.10.2008 to 30.06.2009 demanding duty of Rs. 1,80,618/-. The first show cause notice dated 14.12.2007 was adjudicated through the impugned Order-in-Original dated 08.12.2008 wherein demand was confirmed and personal penalty was imposed on Mr. M.S. Karolia. The Original Authority did not impose penalty for violation of Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Therefore, revenue preferred Appeal No.E/566/2009 for imposition of pen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reported at 2005 (180) ELT 300 (SC) and this Tribunal's final order in the case of Universal Commercial Corporation Vs Collector of Customs, Delhi reported at 1994 (69) ELT 150 and held to conclude that the goods which were cleared from Noida unit were classifiable under Tariff Item No.85393110. The relevant extract of said Order-in-Appeal dated 14.05.2010 is reproduced below for appreciation of the facts and law involved in the said appeal:- "6.3 The instant appeals have been filed against the impugned order challenging that the „based capsule‟ (impugned goods) are the complete CFLs and are classifiable under Tariff heading No.85393110 and that the benefit of concessional rate of duty as prescribed under Notification No.06/2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r unit. -the based capsule as cleared from Noida unit, cannot be used by a customer. -the based unit transferred to their Haridwar unit cannot provide light. = Sh. Satnam Singh:- -there are two types of CFL; one is Non Electofit (CFL without ballast) or the core lamp and the other is direct fit lamp (CFL with ballast). -capsule is glass part of CFL with both ends sealed; -in normal trade parlance based capsule is not known as CFL. -for direct fit lamp other parts which are required to be fitted are PCB, capacitor, starter, plastic cap = Declaration filed with the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Haridwar - It was noticed that copper strips, PBT, Filaments as major inputs which were declared to be used in the m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch refers to a particular article to cover not only the complete article but also that article incomplete or unfinished, provided that, as presented, it has the essential character of the complete or finished article. (2) The second part of Rule 2(a) provides that complete or finished article presented unassembled or disassembled are to be classified in the same heading as the assembled article. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of O.K. Play (India) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Gurgaon reported at 2005 (180) ELT 300 (S.C.) held that- "(1) HSN along with explanatory notes provide as safe guide for interpretation of an entry. (2) Equal importance to be given to Rules of Interpretation of Excise Tariff (3) Functional utility, design, shape....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Collector of Customs, Delhi (supra) held that The disagreement is only about the interpretation whether the incomplete machine should be classified as a complete machine. The ld. Member (Judicial) has applied the test whether it performs the function of the complete machine. The learned SDR has contested this finding on the ground that the expression in Rule 2 (a) is "essential character" and not "essential function", and has placed considerable material in support of his contention. I agree with him that the word "essential character" occurring in Rule 2 (a) cannot be interpreted to mean "functional character". The view of the learned SDR is also supported by the General Comments in Section XVI of the Harmonized System cited by him. I agre....