WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The duty demand made in these impugned orders is on the ground that captively consumed goods had been assessed to central excise duty at lower values resulting in short -levy of duty. Demands for the period April 1996 to March 2000 have been raised under two Show -Cause Notices dated 1.1.2001 and 30.4.2001.

(2.) It is the contention of the appellants that the duty demands are hit by the bar of limitation. It has been pointed out that the goods covered by the demands were captively consumed in another unit of the appellant assessee and whatever duty was paid on the parts in one unit was available as modvat credit to the assessee himself in the unit where they were captively consumed. It is the appellant's submission that in such a case the allegation of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty is not maintainable and duty demands made in terms of proviso to Section 11A can be sustained only if the ingredients mentioned in that proviso like fraud, wilful suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty are in existence.

(3.) During the hearing of the case learned Counsel pointed out that in an identical case in the case of Kitply Industries Ltd. and Anr. v. CCE, Mumbai, 2003 (107) ECR 131 (T) the Tribunal has held in favour of the assessee on the ground of limitation.