KIRAN ISPAT UDYOG Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before us, in these appeals, are 14 Appellants who have challenged the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CEGAT') [: 2002 (148) E.L.T. 1250 (Tribunal)] whereby demand of duty as well as penalty imposed by the Commissioner is upheld. The question pertains to applicability of exemption Notification No. 208/83, dated 1-8-1983. It is not necessary to go into the details of the said notification inasmuch as learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted at the outset that he was accepting the position that the excise duty was payable on the goods manufactured. He, however, presses these appeals only on the ground of limitation arguing that the show cause notices issued to all the Appellants were beyond the period of six months and therefore, were time-barred. It is this aspect which needs to be determined in the present appeals. The periods which are involved for which the duty is demanded and the dates on which the show cause notices were issued to each of the Appellants are mentioned in tabulated form hereunder:

(2.) In order to appreciate the aforesaid stand taken by the Respondent, few facts relevant for determining the issue of limitation are recapitulated below:

(3.) The Appellants are engaged in manufacturing of rolled products, such as bars and rods of iron and non-alloy steel, round bars, C.T.D. bars, etc. This is done from two sources. The Appellants obtain re-rollable scraps/material from ship breaking and from the aforesaid material, activity of manufacturing of rolled products, etc. is carried out. The scraps/material is also obtained from other sources for carrying out the same manufacturing activity by the Appellants.