9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant. Shri J.P. Gregory, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of windmills during the material period. The ferrous waste and scrap which were generated during the course of manufacture of the final product were cleared without payment of duty during the period from 1-3-1994 to 18-8-1994. The department issued s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , there was no exemption for waste and scrap. The case of the appellants is that, in view of the decision of the apex court in W.P.I.L. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, U.P. [2005 (181) E.L.T. 359 (S.C.)], Notification No. 23/95-C.E. dated 16-3-1995 should be held to be clarificatory and retrospective so as to cover the period of dispute in this case. Learned counsel has put forth t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to parts of PD pumps also. It was in such circumstances that the apex court considered Notification No. 95/94 to be clarificatory. Their Lordships found that, by issuing that Notification, the Government was correcting its mistake or having omitted to specify parts of PD pumps in the earlier Notification No. 46/94-C.E. We find that an analogous situation is not obtaining in the instant case. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w of the matter, we hold that there was no exemption from payment of duty on ferrous waste and scrap during the period of dispute. 3. However, the appellants seem to have a good case on the ground of limitation. For the above period (1-3-1994 to 18-8-1994), duty on waste and scrap was demanded by the show-cause notice issued on 21-9-1988. It appears from the records that the appellant s factory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated by their counsel, is irresistible. Learned JCDR has not been able to rebut it either. 4. In the result, it is held that the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act was not invocable in this case. The demand of duty is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the penalty also gets vacated. The appeal stands allowed. (Operative portion of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
