SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/12738 |
Court | Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi |
Decided On | Jan-29-1998 |
Reported in | (1998)LC169Tri(Delhi) |
Appellant | Kemp and Co. Ltd. |
Respondent | Collector of Central Excise |
Excerpt:
1. these are 12 appeals filed by the different appellants being aggrieved with the common order-in-original passed by the addl.collector of central excise, aurangabad. the matter relates to classification of and removal without payment of central excise duty the components of toys manufactured by m/s. blow plast ltd. and removed to m/s. kemp & co. ltd. as "sports goods". the sports goods were eligible for exemption under notification no. 73/86-c.e., dated 10-2-1986. no such exemption was, however, available to the toys or the component parts of the toys. proceedings were drawn against m/s. blow plast ltd., m/s kemp & co. ltd. and the various directors and employees of m/s. blow plast ltd. the duty involved was rs. 60,452.17 and the period involved was july 1986 to december 1986. after observing the principles of natural justice, the addl. collector of central excise, aurangabad, confirmed the demand of central excise duty of rs. 60,452.17, and imposed a penalty of rs. 25,000/- on m/s. blow plast ltd. in addition, a penalty of rs. 5,000/- was imposed on m/s. kemp & co. ltd. and nine other noticees. on the general manager, however, a penalty of rs. 2,000/-only was imposed.2. in their written communication dated 25-6-1997 m/s. blow plast ltd. have prayed for decision on merits. the matter had come up last on 8-12-1997, when shri m.k. agarwal, company representative, was present.in his presence, the matter was adjourned for today i.e. 29-1-1998.earlier the matter had been adjourned on 18-8-1997 and 8-12-1997 on the request of the appellants. as all these matters are old in which the show cause notice was issued in the year 1988 demanding duty for the period july 1986 to december 1986, we are proceedings to deal with all these matters on merits after hearing shri r.s. sangia, jdr, who is present for the respondents/revenue.3. shri r.s. sangia, learned jdr, referred to the order-in-original and submitted that the goods had been correctly described in the adjudication order, there was suppression on the part of m/s. blow plast ltd. and that the goods were not eligible for exemption under notification no. 73/86-c.e., dated 10-2-1986 (effective from 28-2-1986). he also submitted that there was justification for imposition of penalty also on the noticees for which reasons had been given in the adjudication order.4. we have carefully considered the matter. it is seen that m/s. blow plast ltd. had described the goods in dispute as components of polyacetal for sports/outdoor games, components of cellulose acetate for sports/outdoor games and components of other plastics for sports/outdoor games. they sought exemption under notification no.73/86-c.e., dated 10-2-1986 (effective from 28-2-1986) as applicable to the sports goods. they classified their products under heading no.95.06 of the central excise tariff which covered articles and equipment for gymnastics, athletics, other sports (including table-tennis) or outdoor games, not specified or included elsewhere in chapter 95. on visit by the headquarters preventive officers to the factory premises of m/s. blow plast ltd. on 14-12-1986, it was found that m/s. blow plast ltd. were manufacturing component parts for different toys which were marketed as saucer gun, bulls eye and shoot out gun. these components for the toys were being supplied to m/s. kemp & co. ltd., who were manufacturing toys from these components. inquiries also revealed that the appellants had imported moulds for manufacturing plastic components for saucer gun. these products are used by the children as toys. the toys are separately classifiable under chapter 95, under heading 9501,9502 and 9503. the heading no. 95.06 refers to the equipment for gymnastics, athletics, table-tennis etc. by the settled principles of interpretation, the goods akin to those specifically described only are to be covered by the expression "other sports". in this case the component parts, of such toys are marketed as saucer gun, bulls eye and shoot out gun which could not be considered as sports goods as known in common parlance. the components were supplied to m/s. kemp & co. ltd. who had admitted that they marketed the goods made out of the components, so supplied by m/s. blow plast ltd., as toys. we, therefore, consider that in so far as the classification is concerned, the goods involved were not the sports goods.5. as regards the limitation, the adjudicating authority had observed that m/s. blow plast ltd. were aware of the fact that the components manufactured by them were for toys and that the customer m/s. kemp & co. ltd. was manufacturing toys from these components and the goods so manufactured were marketed as toys. he had further observed that it was a case of wrong availment of exemption notification by wrongly declaring the components of toys as component of sports goods. we do not find any material on record to interfere with these findings of the adjudicating authority.6. the duty involved in these proceedings is rs. 60,452.17. a penalty of rs. 25,000/- had been imposed on m/s. blow plast ltd. in the facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the amount of penalty from rs. 25,000/- to rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only). the penalty of rs. 5,000/- imposed on m/s. kemp & co. ltd., jalgaon, and penalty amount of rs. 5,000/- imposed on shri d.g. piramal, chairman, are confirmed. the penalties on other directors and general manager are set aside.7. as a result the demand of duty of rs. 60,452.17 is confirmed. the penalty imposed on m/s. blow plast ltd. is reduced from rs. 25,000/- to rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only). the penalty amount of rs. 5,000/- each on m/s. kemp & co. ltd. and shri d.g. piramal, chairman, are confirmed and the penalties on other directors and general manager are set aside.8. all these 12 appeals are disposed of in the above terms. ordered accordingly.
Judgment: 1. These are 12 appeals filed by the different appellants being aggrieved with the common order-in-original passed by the Addl.
Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad. The matter relates to classification of and removal without payment of Central Excise Duty the components of toys manufactured by M/s. Blow Plast Ltd. and removed to M/s. Kemp & Co. Ltd. as "sports goods". The sports goods were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 73/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986. No such exemption was, however, available to the toys or the component parts of the toys. Proceedings were drawn against M/s. Blow Plast Ltd., M/s Kemp & Co. Ltd. and the various directors and employees of M/s. Blow Plast Ltd. The duty involved was Rs. 60,452.17 and the period involved was July 1986 to December 1986. After observing the principles of natural justice, the Addl. Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad, confirmed the demand of central excise duty of Rs. 60,452.17, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on M/s. Blow Plast Ltd. In addition, a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on M/s. Kemp & Co. Ltd. and nine other noticees. On the General Manager, however, a penalty of Rs. 2,000/-only was imposed.
2. In their written communication dated 25-6-1997 M/s. Blow Plast Ltd. have prayed for decision on merits. The matter had come up last on 8-12-1997, when Shri M.K. Agarwal, Company Representative, was present.
In his presence, the matter was adjourned for today i.e. 29-1-1998.
Earlier the matter had been adjourned on 18-8-1997 and 8-12-1997 on the request of the appellants. As all these matters are old in which the show cause notice was issued in the year 1988 demanding duty for the period July 1986 to December 1986, we are proceedings to deal with all these matters on merits after hearing Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR, who is present for the respondents/Revenue.
3. Shri R.S. Sangia, learned JDR, referred to the order-in-original and submitted that the goods had been correctly described in the adjudication order, there was suppression on the part of M/s. Blow Plast Ltd. and that the goods were not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 73/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 (effective from 28-2-1986). He also submitted that there was justification for imposition of penalty also on the noticees for which reasons had been given in the adjudication order.
4. We have carefully considered the matter. It is seen that M/s. Blow Plast Ltd. had described the goods in dispute as components of polyacetal for sports/outdoor games, components of cellulose acetate for sports/outdoor games and components of other plastics for sports/outdoor games. They sought exemption under Notification No.73/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 (effective from 28-2-1986) as applicable to the sports goods. They classified their products under Heading No.95.06 of the Central Excise Tariff which covered articles and equipment for gymnastics, athletics, other sports (including table-tennis) or outdoor games, not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 95. On visit by the Headquarters Preventive officers to the factory premises of M/s. Blow Plast Ltd. on 14-12-1986, it was found that M/s. Blow Plast Ltd. were manufacturing component parts for different toys which were marketed as saucer gun, bulls eye and shoot out gun. These components for the toys were being supplied to M/s. Kemp & Co. Ltd., who were manufacturing toys from these components. Inquiries also revealed that the appellants had imported moulds for manufacturing plastic components for saucer gun. These products are used by the children as toys. The toys are separately classifiable under Chapter 95, under Heading 9501,9502 and 9503. The Heading No. 95.06 refers to the equipment for gymnastics, athletics, table-tennis etc. By the settled principles of interpretation, the goods akin to those specifically described only are to be covered by the expression "other sports". In this case the component parts, of such toys are marketed as saucer gun, bulls eye and shoot out gun which could not be considered as sports goods as known in common parlance. The components were supplied to M/s. Kemp & Co. Ltd. who had admitted that they marketed the goods made out of the components, so supplied by M/s. Blow Plast Ltd., as toys. We, therefore, consider that in so far as the classification is concerned, the goods involved were not the sports goods.
5. As regards the limitation, the adjudicating authority had observed that M/s. Blow Plast Ltd. were aware of the fact that the components manufactured by them were for toys and that the customer M/s. Kemp & Co. Ltd. was manufacturing toys from these components and the goods so manufactured were marketed as toys. He had further observed that it was a case of wrong availment of exemption notification by wrongly declaring the components of toys as component of sports goods. We do not find any material on record to interfere with these findings of the adjudicating authority.
6. The duty involved in these proceedings is Rs. 60,452.17. A penalty of Rs. 25,000/- had been imposed on M/s. Blow Plast Ltd. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the amount of penalty from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only). The penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed on M/s. Kemp & Co. Ltd., Jalgaon, and penalty amount of Rs. 5,000/- imposed on Shri D.G. Piramal, Chairman, are confirmed. The penalties on other directors and General Manager are set aside.
7. As a result the demand of duty of Rs. 60,452.17 is confirmed. The penalty imposed on M/s. Blow Plast Ltd. is reduced from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only). The penalty amount of Rs. 5,000/- each on M/s. Kemp & Co. Ltd. and Shri D.G. Piramal, Chairman, are confirmed and the penalties on other Directors and General Manager are set aside.
8. All these 12 appeals are disposed of in the above terms. Ordered accordingly.