9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te submitted that M/s. Flex Industries Ltd., Appellant No. 2, imported 100 pieces of seamless carbon steel pipes which were declared by them as capital goods for the purpose of availing the Modvat credit under Rule 51Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that they filed an intimation dated 25-3-1996 with the Department under Rule 57S(5) [subsequently 57S (7)] of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for removal of the said pipes for repair/reconditioning to M/s. Flex Engineering Ltd., Appellant No. 1; that two show cause notices were issued to them for demanding Central Excise duty on the ground that the job work done by the Appellant No. 1 was not in the nature of repairing/reconditioning but it amounts to manufacture of a new product, namely, win ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioned that the Appellants are not challenging the finding of the Commissioner that the processes undertaken by Appellant No. 1 amounts to manufacture; that the benefit of Notification No. 214/86, as amended by Notification No. 68/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995 and Notification No. 91/95-C.E., dated 18-5-1995 is available to the impugned goods; that the entire period of demand involved in the present appeals is from March, 1996 onwards i.e. after the issue of both the amending notifications. He submitted that Notification No. 214/86, as it was originally issued, provided exemption to the goods manufactured in a factory as job work and is used in or in relation to manufacture of final products on which the duty of excise is leviable; that however, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o evade payment of duty ; that thus the Commissioner had clearly held that there was no suppression and as such the demand can not be raised for extended period of limitation; that this finding of the Commissioner was not challenged by the Revenue in their Appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal; that no penalty is imposable on Appellant No. 2 as they had only sent the goods to Appellant No. 1 and received the same back from Appellant No. I after they had done the necessary processing. 5. Countering the arguments Ms. Neeta Lai Butalia, learned Senior Departmental Representative, submitted that in the intimation letter filed by Appellant No. 2 with the Department for removing of seamless carbon steel pipes under Rule 51S (5), the Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produces the evidence that the goods have been so used and he also undertakes the responsibility of discharging the duty liability in respect of Central Excise duty leviable on the finished goods; that as these conditions have not been fulfilled, the benefit of Notification No. 214/86 can not be extended. Finally, he submitted that the plea of Revenue s neutrality will also not be available to the appellants in view of the findings of the Larger Bench in the case of the Tribunal in the case of Jay Yuhshin Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi [2000 (119) E.L.T. 718 (T - LB) = 2000 (39) RLT 501 (CEGAT - LB)] wherein it has been held that the Revenue neutral situation comes about in relation to the credit available to the assessee himself and not by way of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioned in detail the various amendments made in Notification No. 214/86 particularly the amendment made by Notification No. 68/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995. Initially, when the Notification was issued on 25-3-1986 Explanation II read as under :- For the purpose of this notification, the expression said goods does not include - (i) machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products; (ii) . (iii) . (iv) .. (v) .. (vi) .. 7.2 Notification No. 68/95 substituted the Explanation II which reads as under :- For the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part. As the fact of use of impugned goods in the manufacture of final products is not in dispute, the benefit of Notification No. 214/86 cannot be denied to the Appellants. We also observe that in the initial Adjudication order dated 17-10-2000, the Commissioner had clearly mentioned that the procedure and conditions specified under Rule 57S(5) and Notification No. 214/86-C.E., were fully observed and followed by Appellant No. 2. We also observe that there is no finding in the impugned order that the conditions stipulated in Notification No. 214/86 have not been complied with. We also observe that Rule 57S(5) [subsequently Rule 57S(7)] also provided more or less similar procedure for removing the capital goods which is contained in the No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
