9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l (the first appeal has been filed within the statutory period of limitation), and proceed to dispose of both the appeals by this common order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein are licensed manufacturers of machinery and equipment falling under TI 68 of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff for chemical process industries. They also manufacture dished ends and shells falling under TI 26AA for further use in the manufacture of the above machinery and equipment. In respect of dished ends and shells, they availed of the exemption available under Notification 75/67, dated 20-5-1967 according to which iron and steel products falling under TI 26AA and on which appropriate amount of central excise duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to goods falling under TI 68. The Assistant Collector vide Order No. F. No. V 26AA(3)4/MP/81/295, dated 8-1-1982/ 8-3-1982 held that the dished ends were finished products liable to duty even though they were used further by the appellants for captive consumption in the manufacture of machinery and equipment for chemical process industries, negativing the contention of the appellants that the clearance within the factory is not clearance giving rise to duty liability. The Assistant Collector also invoked the extended period of limitation for the reason that the appellants had not disclosed the fact of manufacture of dished ends falling under TI 26AA in their classification list and holding that the classification of goods under the broad h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defence. Appeal No. E/578/96-B1 6. The contention of the appellants in this case is that dished ends manufactured by them are intermediate goods which are not cleared out of their factory but used in the manufacture of machinery and equipment in the same factory. This statement is not acceptable in view of the provisions of Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Removal of finished goods even within the factory for further captive consumption is also removal within the meaning of the Rules, giving rise to duty liability. The case of the Department that the dished ends are identifiable as excisable goods falling for classification under TI 26AA is borne out from the fact that the appellants also manufacture these goods on job ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d heading of engg. goods. In these circumstances, the Department has rightly invoked the larger period of limitation and that appeal fails on this score also. In the result E/1216/86 is allowed by way of remand and E/578/96 is rejected both on merits and on time bar. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. 8. [Order per : S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President]. - I entirely agree with the observations and findings of Hon ble Member (Judicial) in respect of Appeal No. E/1216/86-B. 9. As regards Appeal No. E/578/96-B, with due respects to Hon ble Member (Judicial), my views and orders are as follows. 10. I observe that the Appeal memorandum does not contain any grounds of appeal with reference to that portion of the order of Collector (Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground that the party had never disclosed the fact in the classification list or any other document regarding such use within the factory and a mere mention under the broad head of `Engineering goods was not acceptable. 16. Learned Collector (Appeals) has rejected the appellants contention on the ground that they did not possess L. 4 licence for TI 26AA under which Dished Ends fall and further they were manufacturing these dished ends on job work basis as well as for captive consumption. He has also further noted A.C. s observations that the facts have not been disclosed in the classification list. 17. I observe in this connection that the Collector (Appeals) order is a common order covering two orders of the A.C. regarding the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, reference to a `likely claim to the benefit of Notification 118/75, mentioned by the A.C. in his order, is not clear. 20. It is, of course, true that if an excisable product is manufactured, then it is liable to duty even if it is consumed captively unless exempted and only to the extent exempted. 21. In the present case, while the prayer is for setting aside for quashing the impugned order but the memorandum does not indicate any grounds or disclose any grievance against the portion of the Collector s order dealing with the order-in-original in question. The appellants have perhaps erroneously merely photocopied the appeal memorandum relevant for the other appeal dealt with by the Collector s order without realising their mista ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
