Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2008 (8) TMI 117

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows: (a) The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of goods known as 'Oxygen lancing pipes'. The appellant wrote a letter dated 17-3-1994 to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Faridabad stating that they were purchasing steel tubes from tube mills in sizes up to19/20 mm OD and thickness of 1.2 mm to 2 mm; that the tubes were cold drawn to reduce the outer diameter to desired size. They sought clarification as to whether the activities so undertaken would amount to manufacture. By a letter dated 28-4-1994, a clarification was issued by the Department that their resultant product was excisable and chargeable to Central Excise duty. (b) A letter dated 3-6-1994 was issued by the Superintende....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... pursuance to Tribunal order dated 26-8-97) confirmed duty amounting to Rs. 73,60,631/- and imposed equal penalty under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules. 4.1 The learned Advocate submitted that they purchased mostly duty paid tubes; redrew the pipes to required dimensions; such redrawing did not amount to manufacture prior to 1-3-97 in respect of products falling under 7306. 4.2 He also submits that in respect of the pipes they undertake activities like threading and socketing and the new product is also pipes falling under 7306. Since a new product has not emerged, the product should not be treated as excisable. 4.3 He also made alternate submissions. CBEC Circular No.190/24/26/CX dated 27-3-96 clarified that process of manufacturing p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed 26-8-97 was passed by the Tribunal leaving all issues open and with specific direction to consider the dispute whether the appellant manufactured using HR sheets or duty paid tubes. Tinder these circumstances, it was necessary on their part, to furnish the relevant details. They have not produced the relevant records before the adjudicating authority. 5.2 The duty has been demanded only on the oxygen lance pipes. The oxygen lance pipes is a specialised product. He relies on the literature for this product from web site http://www.pgegroup.com/oxylance.html. It is required for use in high temperature for supplying oxygen to burn metals etc. It requires to be 'cleaned for oxygen use'. This is a sensitive part and must be free from oil and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nput has paid appropriate duty. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. At the outset, we find that the matter is before the Tribunal for the second time having been remanded to original authority in 1997 i.e. more than a decade ago. The remand was necessitated as the applicant raised the plea that they have manufactured the disputed product from steel pipes and not from HR sheets. However, the remand order kept all issues open. Admittedly, appellant was not able to produce any evidence regarding their defence claim that the products were made from steel tubes. 8. We find from the material placed on record before us that the oxygen lance pipes is a product meant for a special purpose; it has come as a result of s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... used for manufacture of the impugned product should be duty paid. The explanation deeming the duty paid nature holds that 'all stocks of inputs in the country' are deemed to be duty paid inputs. The explanation does not hold that all stocks of inputs procured from the market are duty paid. The learned DR submits that the explanation should be treated as one time relaxation of the available stock at the time of coming of the notification. We are in agreement with this view of the learned DR. Otherwise, it can lead to a situation where not only all stocks of inputs in the country at the coming of the notification but also whatever produced and procured by the various manufacturers over the years would be deemed to be duty paid. 10. As regar....