TRF LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EVEN though the stay application has been listed for hearing, after hearing both sides we find that the issue involved lies in a very narrow campass and does not require any further hearing to come to the conclusion. Therefore with the consent of both sides we take up the appeal itself for final hearing after waiving the requirement of pre -deposit.

(2.) THE appellant procured some spare parts in addition to the one manufactured by them and supplied. It is the claim of the appellants that they manufacture some spare parts and some of the parts which they do not manufacture are bought by them and supplied as genuine spare parts. Claim of the Revenue is that the appellant manufactures spare parts and also procures them from the market and clear them as if they have manufactured the same. For this purpose, it has been observed in the impugned order that bought -out spare parts as well as spare parts manufactured by them, are inspected and removed in a packing containing logo of TRF as genuine spare parts. It has been observed that TRF goods are warranted in respect of spare parts removed by them including bought -out items also to their customers. According to Revenue, warranty and logo as above can be given by a manufacturer only and no trader can be given such logo as per rules of the trade. On the ground that the appellants did not keep separate accounts of the bought -out items, did not store them separately, after receiving the bought -out items opened the packing, inspected the same, checked the same and sold them as spares of genuine spares, duty demand for these bought -out items has been made treating them as manufactured by the appellants. In the show cause notice, reliance has also been placed on Chapter Note 6 of Section 16 to make the observation that finishing the unfinished goods also amounts to manufacture.

(3.) IT was submitted on behalf of the appellants that appellants no doubt did not maintain separate accounts upto December for which the demand has been made. Further the ld. Counsel submitted that it has always been the claim of the appellants that none of the spare parts was bought -out was sold by them or manufactured by them. In reply to show cause notice a statement to this effect was made. In spite of this, the Commissioner has recorded a finding that spare parts are bought -out as well as manufactured. Apart from the allegation in the show cause notice, there is no evidence in the form of statement, document or any other evidence has been mentioned by the ld. Commissioner which is the basis for him to come to the conclusion that bought -out spare parts which are in dispute in this case are also manufactured by the appellant. Therefore, we consider it sufficient to determine whether opening, packing, inspection, repacking and affixing of logo would amount to manufacture in respect of bought -out parts or not?