9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (12) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the same manufacturer, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. Where such use was in a factory of a manufacturer, different from the factory where the goods had been manufactured, the exemption was allowable subject to the proper officer being satisfied that the goods were intended for such use. The case of the department is that appellants, who are manufacturers of sugar, also produced steam, an excisable product, and utilised it in the adjacent Distillery unit without payment of duty on such steam. It is alleged that they incorrectly availed of Notification No. 118/75. 2. In the order-in-appeal against which the appellants are before us, it has been observed that factory as per the definition in Section 2(e) of Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they failed to follow this procedure, they were not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 105/82, the Collector (Appeals) held. 4. Appellants had also stated in the reply to the show cause notice that demands of duty raised were substantially barred by limitation. This claim was rejected by the Collector (Appeals) on the ground that appellants failed to declare to the department that the steam was being used in the distillery unit, a premises distinct from the one where the steam was being manufactured. 5. We have heard Shri K.P. Joshi, Advocate, for the appellants and Shri L.C. Chakraboraty, JDR, for the department. 6. The learned advocate has emphasised that both the sugar manufacturing unit as well as the distillery was under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Chakraboraty submits that it is not clear whether the unit having distillery is also manufacturing excisable goods, and is factory within the meaning of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. It is, therefore, recommended that the matter may be remanded for readjudication after factual verification in this regard. 11. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and submissions made before us. We find that the Collector (Appeals) has already held that the distillery was another factory of the same manufacturer within the meaning of the Central Excises and Salt Act and the relevant notification. This is an appeal of the assessee; it is not open to the department to challenge these findings in these proceedings 12. The only reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
