2009 (7) TMI 46

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rdered to pay a sum of Rs.14 lakhs (approximately) towards excise duty, with equal amount towards penalty and in the other order, the appellant-assessee was asked to pay Rs.12 lakhs (approximately) towards excise duty, with equal amount of penalty thereon. 2. Against the said orders of the Revenue, two different appeals were preferred before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'CEGAT'), South Zonal Bench, Chennai, by the appellant-assessee, under Section 35-B of the Act, along with a petition for dispensing with the deposit of duty and penalty so demanded in terms of the proviso to Section 35-F of the Act. By order dated 24.9.1999, the CEGAT ordered to pay a total sum of Rs.10 lakhs. 3. The learned sing....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessee referred to one or other order passed by the CEGAT, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai, as confirmed by the Supreme Court. 10. It is brought to our notice that the appellant-assessee manufactures "Uninterrupted Power Supply" systems (for short, 'the UPS') and supplies the same without batteries, which are purchased from other sources and delivers directly to the buyers' premises. According to the assessee, the value of battery is not includible in assessing the value of UPS, as per Section 4 of the Act.     11. In the case of "Commissioner of C.Ex.&Cus.,Pune-1 vs. A.Z. Electronics" reported in 2001 (134) E.L.T. 689 (Tri.-Mumbai), the CEGAT, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai, having noticed that the battery is not manufactured by the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Supreme Court while disposing of the appeal filed by J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (Civil Appeal No.9175 of 1995), the CEGAT confirmed the correctness of the classification determined by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal preferred by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai was dismissed by the CEGAT with a specific observation that the UPS supplied by the assessee therein does not include the batteries, which were not necessarily related to the manufacture of UPS. 13. We have noticed the aforesaid facts to find out as to whether a prima-facie case has been made out by the  appellant herein (assessee) and prima-facie whether the appellant was liable to pay any amount towards excise duty/penalty, by adding value of the battery with the ....