2008 (4) TMI 246 - AT - Central Excise

Appellants obtained duty paid iron & steel products and manufactured Railway wagons - no credit taken on the impugned material as wagons are supplied duty free to the Railways captive consumption of waste & scrap generated during mfg. of exempted wagons appellant claim for exemption under not. no. 67/35 is not acceptable however no duty can be charged on impugned waste generated out of duty paid material, credit of which has not been taken

Summary

Issues involved: Applicability of exemption notification No. 67 of 95 to duty paid iron & steel products used in manufacturing duty-free Railway wagons, denial of exemption benefit by the adjudicating Commissioner, availability of other exemptions, time-barred demand period, penalties imposed, and interest on duty payable.

Analysis:

1. The appellants claimed exemption under notification No. 67 of 95 for using duty paid iron & steel products to manufacture duty-free Railway wagons. However, the adjudicating Commissioner denied the exemption, stating that the notification does not apply when the finished goods are exempted. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's decision, holding that the benefit of the exemption was rightly denied to the appellants.

2. The Department argued that no other exemption, including under Notification No. 89/05, is available in such situations, citing precedents like Commr. of C. Ex., Raipur v. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. The Tribunal acknowledged the absence of a specific exemption for the scenario where waste and scrap generated from duty paid material, not credited by the appellants, is used to manufacture duty-free wagons. Despite recognizing the injustice in imposing duty on such scrap, the Tribunal upheld the denial of the appellants' case based on the lack of a specific exemption notification and previous Tribunal decisions.

3. The appellants contended that the demand period from March 1995 to April 1999 was time-barred as the Show Cause Notice was issued on 26-11-1999. The Department argued for the invocation of the extended period of limitation due to the appellants' failure to declare the use of scrap for exempted finished goods. The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances, ruled that the extended period of five years was not justified, setting aside the demand for the extended period but confirming the duty amount for the normal limitation period.

4. Regarding penalties imposed, the Tribunal found them unjustified and set them aside. However, the appellants were directed to pay interest on the duty amount for the normal limitation period as per the law. The appeal was partly allowed, with the demand amount for the normal period remanded to the Adjudicating Commissioner for computation, and the Cross Objection was disposed of accordingly.