Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1998 (4) TMI 235

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... actured by the assessee is leviable to excise duty and whether the extended period of time for issuing the show cause notice under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act was available to the department. 2. M/s. Travancore Cements Ltd. manufacture white cement out of lime shell dradged from the bed of the Vembanad lake. For removing water and impurities from the lime shell they designed and made the revolving screening plant on their own and cleared the same in 1985 for placing it on dredger without payment of Central Excise Duty and without following the excise formalities. A show cause notice dated 12-6-1989 for demanding duty and imposition of penalty was issued to them. The Additional Commissioner, Central Excise in the impugned orde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e of Gujarat Machinery Manufacturer Ltd. v. CCE, Baroda - 1983 (12) E.L.T. 825 (Tribunal). It was also contended that they were eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 201/79, dated 4-6-1979 following the decision in the case of Haryana State Electricity Board v. CCE - 1988 (37) E.L.T. 81 (Tribunal). 4. The learned Advocate finally argued that the demand of duty was barred by limitation as the said plant was assembled in May, 1985 and it was put into use in 1985 itself and was in continuous use thereafter to the knowledge of the Central Excise Officers who had seen the same on periodic visits to their factory and dredging area and the existence and use had all along been disclosed in their balance sheet and accounts and other statutor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... unt to manufacture as held in Haryana State Electricity Board v. CCE - 1993 (68) E.L.T. 469 (Tribunal). It was also mentioned that in any event, all the facts necessary for the demand was within the department s knowledge by 17-8-1988 and the show cause notice could legally be issued only within six months of such knowledge which was admittedly not done. 5. Shri Nunthuk, ld. JDR, argued that neither any declaration was filed nor any classification list was filed by the appellants regarding manufacture and clearance of screening plant; that the product is not unknown in the market as the same was fabricated after taking the alternatives into consideration, that the periodical visits by the officers do not absolve the manufacturer from his .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s `saleable or `suitable for sale . It need not be in fact, marketed . Similar views were expressed by the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Geep Industrial Syndicate v. CCE - 1994 (74) E.L.T. 125 (Tribunal) = 1994 (5) RLT 104 (Tribunal) in which it was observed that the propensity of the goods to be marketed is the relevant fact and actual marketing of the goods is of no relevance. 8. We also observe that the benefit of Notification No. 46/81-C.E., dated 1-3-1981 is not available to them as the screening plant was got fabricated by the appellant in an open yard outside their licensed premises which place will be covered by the word `precincts used in the definition of factory under Section 2(e) of the Central Excise Act. Further this .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hs from the date of knowledge by the department. It is settled by the Appellate Tribunal that extended time limit from the date of removal is applicable in respect of period prior to date on which department came to know of appellant s manufacturing activities. See Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. CCE - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 557 (Tribunal) = 1996 (16) RLT 867 (Tribunal). Accordingly the extended period for issuing the notice was available to the department in the present matter and the demand is, therefore, not hit by time limit. 9. We, however, agree with the appellants that they were eligible to avail the benefit of Notification No. 201/79, dated 4-6-1979 in respect of the duty paid components used in the manufacture of impugned screening plant machine .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates