9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 712X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e molten slag into granulated slag and then transport the same to their factory. Up to 22-7-96 there was no duty of central excise on granulated slag which was imposed for the first time w.e.f. 23-7-96. The invoices issued by M/s. IISCO to the appellant for the slag being given to them were as - granulated slag equivalent to molten slag . The said invoices also showed payment of duty of excise on the slag. 2. The appellants were issued a show cause notice raising demand of duty on the granulated slag by alleging that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of the same, which is classifiable under heading 2618.00 and attracted to duty. Accordingly the notice issued on 11-11-99 proposed confirmation of demand of duty on granulated s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... troduction of budget for the year 1996, they wrote a letter on 24-7-1996 to their jurisdictional superintendent seeking their advice as regards the changes in the budget of financial year 1996-97. He also submits that M/s. IISCO wrote to them on 27-7-96 clarifying that as in that year's budget, granulated slag has become excisable w.e.f. 23-7-96, excise duty will be charged @ 10%. As such he submits that as M/s. IISCO was paying duty on the granulated slag, which was being converted in their slag granulation plant situated within M/s. IISCO s premises, they entertained a reasonable belief that no further duty is required to be paid by them. He also draws our attention to another letter dt.1-8-96 written by the appellant to the superintenden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... des and have gone through the impugned order. We are of the view that the appeal can be decided on the point of limitation. Apart from the fact that with the budgetary changes for the financial year 1996-97, the appellant sought advice of their jurisdictional central excise authorities, we find that they also wrote a letter dt. 1-8-96 to the superintendent having jurisdiction over the factory of M/s. IISCO as also on the slag granulation plant of the appellant. For better appreciation, the said letter is being reproduced below:- Dear Sir, Kindly refer to the discussion our representative had with you regarding the above subject on 30-7-96. It was transpired from the discussion, since the Slag Granulation Plant situated within IISCO Prem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted. 7. A reading of the above letter show that the appellant placed all the facts before the Revenue. We also note that inspite of all facts having been placed before the Revenue they were not granted a manufacturers licence, but were regd. as a dealer. The factum of registration as a dealer reflects upon the Revenue s understanding at that point of time that the appellant is not to be considered as a manufacturer. As such it is not open to the Revenue to allege suppression against the appellant subsequently and confirm demand of duty by invoking the extended period of limitation. From the impugned order we find that the Commissioner has not given any justifiable reasons for invoking the extended period. In these circumstances we are of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
