Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Narang Latex And Dispersions Pvt. Ltd. vs Commr. Of C. Ex. on 12 November, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2001(134)ELT482(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER G.N. Srinivasan, Member (J)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), Mumbai who by the impugned order dated 7-1-1998 confirmed the duty amounting to Rs. 28,62,494/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
2. The appellant is a manufacturer of rubber nipples falling under Chapter 4014.90. They were filing classification list with Assistant Collector from time to time. The said CLs were approved and their final product being rubber nipples. There was a point raised in audit in 1990 and therefore the appellant submits that the activities of the appellant were known to the Department. A show cause notice was issued on March, 1993 charging the appellant that they had suppressed the fact that some of the rubber nipples manufactured and cleared on payment of duty on rubber nipples only were actually cleared after attaching them with boughtout plastic or glass bottles and packing them in printed corrugated boxes indicating details of manufacture, etc. The Department therefore charged that the assessee cleared the new excisable product namely plastic or glass feeding bottles classifiable under 3926.90 and 7015.00 without filing classification lists and without payment of duty. Therefore duty was claimed and penalty was imposed to be charged. We have heard Shri Gautam Doshi, C.A., for the appellant and Shri Ashokan, DR for the Department. It is found that the Tribunal recently in their judgment in the case of Dalmia Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur 1999 (112) E.L.T. 305, under similar circumstances has held that there is no activity of the assessee in those goods, it does not amounts to manufacture. The instant case also find facts are identical with that of the case decided by the Tribunal in Dalmia Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur. Hence following the said judgment we allow the appeal setting aside the impugned order. The appeal stands allowed.