2019 (9) TMI 276

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....yes for plastic items and parts thereof falling under Chapter Heading No.8480.10/8480.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Alleging that during the relevant period 2001-2002, the Appellants had cleared 10 pieces of mould against the invoice No.26, dt.15.03.2001 through their related person i.e. M/s Modern Thermoplastics India Pvt. Ltd (M/s MTIPL for short), suppressing the correct value and also they have collected charges on repair/modification of mould sold earlier to various customers but failed to discharge duty on modification/repair charges. Consequently, show cause notice was issued to them for recovery of Excise duty sort paid for the period from July 1997 to March 2002 with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed that the modification charges received were towards manufacture and sale of mould parts to the customers. 4. It is his contention that moulds, after being put to use for certain period, requires repair and maintenance. Also, certain moulds require modification due to change in design and specification of parts. It is his contention that the mould repairing/modification does not bring into existence a product having new name, character and use. Hence, therefore no manufacturing activity is involved on such mould repairing/mould modification. It is his contention that the issue is covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Ampson Engineering Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE Mumbai - 2016 (336) ELT 361 (Tri-Mumbai) and Karthigeya Moulds & Di....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....KEA. Therefore, the moulds which were sold by the Appellant to M/s MTIPL are not sold as such but after certain processes undertaken on the said moulds. Hence, Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 cannot be made applicable. Out of the 19 moulds supplied by M/s MTIPL to M/s IKEA, they had procured 14 moulds from the Appellant and imported remaining 5 moulds. He has submitted that the value of all 14 moulds were not on higher side when sold to M/s IKEA. In fact, only 2 moulds were sold at higher price than purchased from the Appellant. 7. The learned A.R. for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the learned Commissioner. 8. Heard both sides and perused the records. 9. The issues involved in the present appeal for dete....