JYOTI CARPET INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is a proprietary firm engaged in the activity of making car floor mat, telephone mat. The activities were carried on without obtaining any registration from the Central Excise Department and without paying central excise duty on removal of their final product. The appellant was maintaining the stand that the process carried on by it did not amount to manufacture and the end -products are not liable to duty. The above contention was not accepted by the Department. The matter finally came up before this Tribunal and by Final Order No. 100 -101/2001 -D, dated 17 -4 -2001 [2001 (132) E.L.T. 458 (T)] this Tribunal upheld the view taken by the Department. The Tribunal further proceeded to hold as follows :

(2.) THE order impugned was passed by the Commissioner after remand. The Commissioner confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 1,86,004/ - in respect of 'other mattings' and dropped the demand of Rs. 20,09,454.77 in respect of car mattings, A penalty of Rs. 52,164/ - was imposed under Section 11AC and an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ - under Rule 173Q for contravention of erstwhile. Rule 9(1), 52A, 173G and 226 of the Central Excise Rules. The Commissioner also held that the appellant is liable to pay interest under Section 11AB on Rs. 52,164/ -.

(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the appellant that the value has been incorrectly determined by the Commissioner. Even though specific ground has been taken by the appellant before the Commissioner on the basis of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act and the decision of this Tribunal in Srichakra Tyres Ltd. and Ors. v. CCE, Madras - 1999 (108) E.L.T. 361 (Tribunal) = 1999 (32) RLT 1, the Commissioner failed to consider this contention. According to the appellant if the correct principles are applied as above, the net duty liability on the sale figures of other mattings for the period 1995 -96 to 1998 -99, namely, Rs. 7,44,017/ - would come to only Rs. 1,48,803/ -. On this basis the duty liability upto 28 -9 -96 would be Rs. 1,07,072/ - and for the remaining period Rs. 41.731/ -. It is further contended that Modvat credit should have been allowed on the basis of the duty paid on the inputs. Appellant submits that in order to ascertain the proportionate value of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of other matting the following calculation has to be made.