TISCO Vs. CCE,JAMSHEDPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the conformation of demand of Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 44,78,167.02 and imposition of penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Iron and Steel products. It has another manufacturing unit o Growth Shop in Tejpur about 8 kms. away. In the Growth Shop the appellant manufacturers certain equipment and components and claims manufacture of equipment and components for repairs and maintenance of its machineries and component parts thereof required for captive use. The appellant manufacturers components and parts and cleared some of them after paying Cental Excise Duty. However, some parts are brought to its main plant stating that they were meant for repairs and maintenance of the main plant. The appellant availed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 281/86 dt. 24.4.86. There SCNs. were issued to the appellant asking them to explain as to why duty should not be demanded from them under Rule 9(2), 196(1) of the Central Excise Rules read with proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Cental Excise Act as the benefit of Notification no. 281/86 dt. 24.4.86. was not available to them and why penalty should not be imposed. The appellant had applied for permission under Rule 192 of Cental Excise Rules, 44 for getting parts of loco, wagon, rolling stock falling under Chapter 86 of the Schedule from the growth shop without payment of duty claiming the benefit of Notification No. 281/86. Permission was refused as the products were not found to be covered under the provisions of this Notification.

(3.) Shri Ashok Sagar, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that he is not pressing any other issue except the issue on limitation. Ld. Counsel submits that there was no mis -declaration on the part of the appellants as the appellant had declared the goods being brought as also obtained the L -6 Licence. He submits that the appellant had informed the Department the exact description of the goods that were being brought from the Growth Shop to the main plant. He submits that these goods were being used in the wagons and wagons were being used for carrying heavy ingots from one place to the other. Ld. Counsel submits that there was no mis -declaration what -soever. He submits that the Department was fully aware of the facts as some SCNs on the same issue for the same period were first issued by the Supdt. which were subsequently followed by issue by SCNs by the Commissioner. He submits that since there was no misdeclaration, therefore, the question of involving longer period did not arise. He, therefore, prays that on this count alone, the demand is time barred and prays that the demand may be set aside and consequently, the penalty should also.