TISCO LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAMSHEDPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE demand of duty has been confirmed against the appellant on the ground that during the period 1st March, 94 to 15th March, 95, the Captive Consumption Exemption notification was not available and inasmuch as the appellant had manufactured certain parts of their machine shop for captive consumption, the duty is liable to be paid on the same. The show cause notice for the above proposition was issued on 23 -4 -99 and stands confirmed by the Commissioner vide his impugned order.

(2.) SHRI D.K. Dhar, learned advocate appearing alongwith Shri Partha Banerjee, learned advocate has assailed the impugned order on two grounds, first the entire situation was revenue neutral inasmuch as the appellant would have availed the benefit of Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs used in such parts and the duty paid on said parts would again be available to them as Modvat credit for utilization towards payment of duty on the final product. For the above proposition reliance has been made on the Tribunals decision in the case of India Foils Ltd. - 2002 (145) E.L.T. 238 (Tri. -Kolkata) wherein Larger Bench decision in the case of Jay Yuhshin Ltd. - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 718 (Tribunal - LB) was followed. Secondly it has been argued that the demand was hit by limitation having been raised after the normal period of six months. It is submitted that it cannot be said that the appellants jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities were not aware of manufacture of said parts for Captive Consumption when the classification list filed by the appellant in the year 1986, clearly mentioned manufacture of such parts along with claim of Captive Consumption Exemption notification.

(3.) SHRI A.K. Mondal, learned SDR appearing for the Revenue submits that the Modvat credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of such parts is not available to the appellant inasmuch as no documentary evidence showing payment of duty has been produced before the Adjudicating Authority. As regards limitation, Shri Mondal submits that no classification list was filed as observed by the Commissioner in his impugned order.