SAMCAR GLASS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order in original dated 27 -1 -2000 (wrongly described as order in appeal in the memo of appeal) passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide which he had confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 36,46,103/ - and imposed penalty of Rs. 2 lac on them.

(2.) THE appellants are engaged in the manufacture of TV Glass Shells of 14" and 17' classifiable under sub -heading 7008.20 of the CETA and during the manufacture of that product, intermediate goods, namely, glass panels, glass funnels and glass necks were also produced by them during the period 1 -3 -1999 to 28 -9 -1999 from the various raw materials including neck tubes etc. These intermediate goods were used captively by them in the manufacture of their final product i.e. TV glass shells. They availed benefit of Notification No. 67/95 -C.E. dated 16 -3 -1995 in respect of these goods. On 9 -9 -1999 the preventive party of Central Excise paid surprise visit to their factory premises and during checking of the records, it revealed that they had cleared their final product, TV glass shells to M/s. Samtel India Ltd. against CT -2 certificates at nil rate of duty under Notification No. 47/94 -C.E. (NT) dated 22 -9 -1994. They, therefore, could not avail the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 -C.E. dated 16 -3 -1995 in respect of the intermediate goods i.e. glass panels, glass funnels and glass necks, for having cleared the final product (TV glass shells) at nil rate of duty under Notification No. 47/94. They accordingly were served with a show cause notice dated 1 -10 -1999 for payment of duty amount of Rs. 36,46,103/ - on the intermediate goods i.e. glass panels, glass funnels and glass necks, captively used for the manufacture of final product during the period 1 -3 -1999 to 28 -9 -1999 and penalty was also proposed to be imposed on them. They, however, contested the correctness of that notice by alleging that the clearances of their final product to M/s. Samtel India Ltd. under CT -2 certificate who in turn exported the same under Rule 13 of the Rules, could not be treated as clearances exempt from payment of duty or chargeable to nil rate of duty for denying them the benefit of Notification No. 67/95. But the adjudicating authority, namely, Commissioner, did not agree with their contention and accordingly confirmed the duty demand of the amount mentioned above and as indicated in the show cause notice and also imposed penalty of Rs. 2 lac on them through the impugned order.

(3.) THE appellants have come up in appeal against the above said impugned order of the Commissioner before the Tribunal.