2002 (7) TMI 182

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Shri G. Shivadass, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants were engaged in the supply of one or more items mentioned below viz., (a)   Scanners; (b)   Keyboard wedge or decoder or wand; and/or (c)   Software in the form of floppy diskettes. Shri Shivadass submitted that the scanners were imported by the appellants and the keyboard wedges were purchased from other manufacturer. He said that the activity of placing both of these items in a pouch does not amount to manufacture whereas the Commissioner has relied upon the Note 6 to Section XVI of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 to come to the conclusion that t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the Department. He also said that in pursuance of the decision of the Supreme Court, the Department had issued a Circular accepting the decision wherein it was clarified that two different items putting together in a kit does not amount to manufacture. In this context he referred to the Circular No. 583/20/2000-CX., dated 20-8-2001. He also submitted that the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court has been followed subsequently by the Tribunal in a series of cases. In this context he referred to the following cases : - (a)   T.I. diamond Chain Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai [2000 (126) E.L.T. 790 (Tribunal)] (b)   CCE Jaipur-I v. Venelec Electromech Indus (P) Ltd. [2002 (141) E.L.T. 156 (Tri. - Del.)] (c) &nb....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....activities of packing and testing were undertaken by the party before clearing the goods would amount to manufacture. He also referred to the Catalogue issued by the party wherein it was specifically mentioned that they are manufacturer of the Bar-code hardware and Systems. He said in view of this position, the ratio of the decisions referred to above is not applicable to the facts of this case. 5. In this context, Shri G. Shivadass, Counsel submitted that in the case of TI Diamond Chain Ltd. (supra), the issue with reference to packing after testing also has been considered by the Tribunal and on relying upon the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, it was held that activity undertaken by the party does not amount to manufactur....