TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (5) TMI 138
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2/2005 (H-III) C.E. dated 29-7-2005 Not determined E/1131/2005 O.I.O. No. 12/2005-Commr. dated 12-7-2005 Rs. 7,43,598/- Rs. 25,000/- The appellants are highly aggrieved over the impugned orders, therefore, they have come before this Tribunal for relief. 2. Shri R. Raghavan, learned advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri K. Sambi Reddi, learned J.D.R. for the Revenue. 3. We heard both sides. 4. Shri R. Raghavan, learned advocate explained to the bench that both these appeals have a checkered history. The appellants manufacture certain automobile components for M/s. Wheels India Ltd., Padi, Chennai. They receive the inputs namel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at Chennai, the Commissioner (A) had held that similar products manufactured by M/s. Wheels India Ltd. was not covered under the compounded levy scheme, as they are only automobile parts. It is stated that the said Order-in-Appeal has not been appealed against and has become final. In the Tribunal's remand, there is reference to the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras. In any case, when the matter reached on remand to the Original Authority, he distinguished between the facts of the Madras case and he did not go by the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai. Therefore, once again he issued the order against the appellants stating that they have to discharge the duty liability under the compounded levy sch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ia Ltd. The Commissioner (A), Chennai has gone through the facts very carefully and has given a very reasoned order discussing as to why the said items would not be covered under the compounded levy scheme. Para 8, 9 and 10 of the said order are reproduced below because they are very relevant for this case, as the products manufactured by the appellants and the products dealt with in the said Order-in-Appeal are one and the same. "8. From the write up as also from the drawings given by the appellants, it is clear that the products in question are flanges and lock rings made to specifications as per the requirements of M/s. Wheels India and are known as such only in the market and not as hot rolled products. The appellants have also point....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 10. I find force in the pleadings of the appellants as above. It is an admitted fact that M/s. Wheels India have been permitted to send out billets on payment of 10% of the sale price as required under 57F(4) and on receipt of the products after job work from the appellants, they are using the same as processed components in the assembly of wheels. Their point that the appellants' products were not treated as MS angles, shapes, sections, rounds and flats prior to 1-9-97 but treated as flanges and lock rings and redrawn as components of wheels is also well taken. Therefore, there is no reason to consider the products as MS angles, shapes and sections after 1-9-97 for classifying differently as re-rolled products under heading 7216. In ot....