9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (4) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Item 16-B of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. They were served a notice on 11-5-1983 by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Bhopal in terms of Section 51(2)(d) of the Finance Act, 1982 requiring them to show cause as to why Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 17,91,904.63 should not be recovered from them on the wood based Compreg Board clandestinely removed for captive consumption for the manufacture of components and articles thereof during the period 1-3-1982 to 30-11-1982. The Assistant Collector Central Excise, Bhopal vide his order dated 20-4-1985 confirmed the said demand on the grounds it was not hit by limitation since the provisions of Section 51(2)(d) of the Finance Act, 1982 were quite independent of the provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovided duty was paid on the final product and both the intermediate and final products were covered by Rule 56A. In this regard he cited the following decisions of the Tribunal :- (i) Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Andhra Industrial Works [1991 (56) E.L.T. 838 (Tri.) = 1992 (39) E.C.R. 49] (ii) Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Shri Balaji Cables Inds., Amantpur [1987 (29) E.L.T. 77] Shri Lakshmi Kumaran further contended that it had correctly been held by the Collector (Appeals) that the demands having been raised under Section 51(2)(d) of the Finance Act, 1982 were subject to the limitation under Section 11A. He argued that Section 51 was only a machinery provision which provided the authority for recovery with r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e proforma credit procedure under Rule 56A was also applicable to them. In the case of Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Andhra Industrial Works the Tribunal had held that even prior to the issue of Notification No. 187/83, dated 9-7-1983 aluminium wires cleared for active consumption in the manufacture of aluminium conductors were not chargeable to duty when duty was paid on the final product as it would amount to double taxation. Paragraph 9 of the said decision being relevant is reproduced below:- It is also seen that in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Shri Balaji Cable Indus. Anantpur 1987 (29) E.L.T. 77 (Trib.) the Tribunal had arrived at a similar finding. In that case even when the demands for recover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
