AUTOLITE (INDIA) LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Autolite (India) Limited [in short, M/s. Autolite] are manufacturers of automobile head -lamps falling under Chapter Sub -Heading (CSH) 8512.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. One of the main components of their product is glass lens obtained by a moulding process involving the use of moulds consisting of Dies, Plungers and Rings. A complete mould for glass falls under CSH 8480.10 and parts thereof are classifiable under CSH 8480.90. Under Notification No. 67/95 -CE., dated 16 -3 -95, the Central Government exempted from duty of excise, capital goods as defined in Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 manufactured in a factory and used within the factory of production. During 1 -4 -1995 - 6 -2 -98, M/s. Autolite manufactured Dies, Plungers and Rings and cleared the same out of their factory under invoices for captive consumption without payment of duty, claiming exemption under the above Notification. The department detected this activity and investigated the matter.

(2.) During the course of investigations, M/s. Autolite paid an amount of Rs. 25 Lakhs towards duty on the clearances. On the basis of the investigative findings, the department, invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, issued show cause notice (SCN) dated 24 -9 -99 for recovering duty from the company and imposing penalties on the company and its Director, Sh. M.P. Gupta. The SCN was contested by the noticees on classification of the goods, valuation of the goods and quantification of the demand and also on the ground of limitation. The Jurisdictional Commissioner, after examining the parties' contentions in detail and analysing the evidence in the case, passed the following order : -

(3.) Ld. Advocate Shri V. Lakshmikumaran reiterated the grounds except Ground -B stated in the appeal memoranda. He placed strong reliance on the Tribunal's decision in Monica Electronics v. CCE, New Delhi [2000 (123) E.L.T. 1047 (Tribunal) = 2000 (39) RLT 312] in support of the appelants' plea that Rules 57 -S(8) to 57 -S(10) could have been resorted to by them ( in the event of the benefit of the Notification not being admissible to them) so that there could have been only a revenue neutral situation resulting from payment of duty on the goods in question. In the context of arguing further on limitation, the Counsel relied on the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in Jay Yuhshin Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi [2000 (119) E.L.T. 718 Ld. SDK Sh. K.K. Goel reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority.