2025 (7) TMI 1551

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s), Mysore. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of 'printers and parts & accessories of printers' falling under Chapter heading 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the relevant period from October 2012 to September 2013, they have imported 'Toner Powder' at concessional rate of duty under Sl. No. 39 of the Notification No. 132/2006-Cus. dated 30.12.2006 for its usage in the manufacture of Toners classified under Chapter sub heading 84439959 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which were dully accepted by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and accordingly they claimed exemption under Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7 dated 20.09.2024 decided the issue in favor of the appellant. Therefore, for the present period also, the aforesaid judgment is applicable since involving the same set of facts and circumstances. 4. The Learned AR for the Revenue has reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. We find that this Tribunal in the appellant's own case for the earlier period from February 2010 to September 2012, analysing the facts as well as the principle of law on the subject observed as follows: "12. We find that as per the details furnished by the appellant, appellant is procuring used 'Waste Empty Toner Cartridges' and it is dismantled into individual parts. There....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....acture. However, considering the above, we find that the activity carried out by the appellant amounts to manufacture. 14. Further as evident from the record, the Appellant had informed the concerned authority regarding their intention to manufacture the final product and by incorporating the final product, registration certificate was issued on 18.02.2010. Further audit was regularly conducted, and the only objection is regarding the valuation. At no point of time, Respondent has alleged that the activities do not amount to manufacture. Further as submitted by the Learned Counsel, Appellant had paid huge amount of excise duty during the period of manufacture activities and the benefit of Notification No. 24/2005-Cus dated 01.03.20....