1999 (10) TMI 506 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: The appeal concerns whether a turbine generating set assembled at the site is subject to excise duty and if the demand is within the time limit specified under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excises Act.

Excisability of the product: The appellant, M/s. Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd., relied on a previous Tribunal decision and Supreme Court appeal regarding the excisability of the product. They argued that the demand for duty, except for a six-month period, is time-barred under Section 11A(1) due to the issuance of a show cause notice in 1996. The appellant contended that the Department cannot invoke a longer period for demand when it was not available initially. They also claimed the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 for the period within six months, citing the exemption for Capital goods under Rule 57-Q.

Department's arguments: The Department argued that there was no confusion post a 1990 circular, and the observations in a previous Tribunal order were not applicable. They claimed that the larger period of limitation is applicable as the appellants did not provide a classification list or price list for the goods. The Department also raised concerns about the usage of capital goods under Notification No. 67/95.

Tribunal decision: The Tribunal noted that the Department was aware of the assembly and erection of turbine generating sets by the appellants, thus suppression of facts could not be alleged. Relying on a previous decision, the Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was not applicable. They agreed with the appellant that the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 applied as the generating sets were used within the factory of production. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed in the impugned order.