9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants are holders of L4 licence No. 1/84 and are manufacturers of goods falling under chapter 72 to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 out of waste and scrap of steel with the aid of electric furnace. They had obtained steel waste and scrap at nil rate of duty as per Notification No. 55/56 from M/s. Arakonam Castings and Forgings Ltd. by following the procedure set out in Chapter X on the strength of CT-2 certificate and L-6 licence No. 2/84 obtained by them. Notification No. 55/86, dated 10-2-1986 permits clearance of waste and scrap of steel at nil rate of duty subject to fulfilment of the conditions viz. : If (i) cleared direct from the factory of production; (ii) an officer not below the rank of an Assista ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal by the Collector (Appeals) against which the present appeal has been filed. 3. Heard Shri V.S. Venugopalan, learned Counsel for the appellants who submitted that the order of the Collector (Appeals) based on the observations that the castings should have been manufactured in the premises of the present appellants i.e. Tamil Nadu Steels Ltd. is not correct in law as chapter X procedure has been followed and the goods under Notification No. 55/86 stipulate that the goods should be used in the manufacture of the specified items mentioned therein and the Notification does not specify the premises where such manufacture should take place. It is the case of the appellants that the molten steel manufactured in their premises were thereaft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Notification has been correctly availed and no demand of duties can be made under Rule 196 of the C.E. Rules. The learned Counsel also made a feeble attempt to submit that time-bar under Section 11A(1) should be read into Rule 196. But on being shown the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Jaipur v. Raghuvar (India) Ltd. reported in 2000 (118) E.L.T. 311 (S.C.) he conceded that he has no case to submit on limitation. 4. Shri S. Kannan, learned DR for the department reiterated the order impugned and submitted that the Notification is very clear and the intentment is that for the manufacturer of castings and/or the other two items mentioned therein, the chapter X procedure should be followed which does not envisa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich was ignored by the lower authority. We find no reason in the present case not to allow the benefit in view of the decision of the larger bench in the case of Arti Paints Chemicals (supra) wherein on similar facts it was held that L-6 licence holder cannot be blamed for misuse of licence. In the present case we cannot hold that the appellants who are L-6 licence holders have misused the Notification. (b) In view of the submission of the learned Counsel regarding the issue of time-bar and the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghuvar (India) Ltd. (supra) we do not uphold the plea on bar of limitation made out by the appellants. 6. In view of our findings and in view of the decision of the larger bench in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
