2000 (6) TMI 69

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ylinder block piston assembly. They paid duty on these goods from 3-7-1996. Thereafter, they unilaterally stopped paying duty but continued such clearance of cylinder block piston assembly (hereinafter called CBPA). Show cause notice alleging suppression etc. was issued on 8-9-1998 demanding duty not paid on such assembly during the period 4-7-1996 to 31-5-1998. After hearing the assessee, the Commissioner held that CBPA was a new excisable product commercially known in the concerned trades and was a specifically identifiable product. He confirmed the duty amounting to Rs. 1,55,83,924/- and imposed penalty of Rs. Two lakhs under Rule 173Q and a penalty of Rs. 1,49,37,565 under Sec. 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Hence, the appeal. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ionary of 28-5-98. He was specifically asked the question about the new product emerging. The question and reply given is as under : Question No. 14 :- Block Piston Assembly is a completely a new product"Q.14. emerging out of the process of assembly and is a new commercial product different from the one with which the process started. It is a item with different name, character and use and the same appears to fall under chap. No. 8409.00 by its factual utility and is dutiable. What you have to say about this? Ans. CYLINDER BLOCK PISTON ASSEMBLY as described in the commercial Invoice is a collection of cylinder block, piston, piston rings, G. Pin, Circlips and does not emerg as a new commercial product. I wish to state that as such onl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....L.T. 263 (A.P.)]. In this case, the High Court was examining the components of cable jointing kit and observed that on being put together, there was no change in identity, character and use of the articles placed in the kit even though the kit had a distinct name and identity. In yet another judgment in the case of TI Diamond Chain Limited v. CCE [1999 ( 35 ) RLT 517 (CEGAT)] the Tribunal had held that putting together some items-manufactured by the assessee did not amount to manufacture even where the assessee undertook to the job of testing and packing. In arriving at the conclusion, the Tribunal observed as under : "It is an admitted fact that each of the four item have different activity and different use and each of the item can be ....