9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from 2000-2001 to 2002-03, confirmed duty demand of Rs.62,14,313/- against them under proviso to Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act alongwith interest on this duty at the applicable rate as per the provisions of Section 11AB of the Act and besides this also imposed penalty of equal amount on the appellant under Section 11AC of the Act. Notification No.13/2000-CE exempts the excisable goods specified in Chapter 72 and 73, manufactured in and cleared from an integrated steel plant and intended to be sold at a place other than the said integrated steel plant, from so much of the duty of excise as is in excess of the duty leviable on such goods, as if they are sold and delivered to a buyer in the course of wholesale trade at the integ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate in the name of Osil Steel Works and the Jurisdictional Central Excise Supdt. Vide his letter dt.20.5.94 informed that the Asstt. Commissioner has accepted the surrender of registration certificate issued in the name of Osil Steel Works and has allotted a common registration for both the products. There is also no dispute about the fact that w.e.f. 1.6.04, there is one common registration certificate and the appellant's factory is being treated as an integrated steel plant and the exemption under Notification No.13/2000-CE is being allowed. The dispute is only for the period from 2000-01 to 2002-03 for which, according to the Department, in view of two separate registration certificates, the appellants can not be treated as an int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... teel products was the vogue and duty was required to be paid under Section 3A, the appellants were discharging duty under Section 3 of Central Excise Act read with Section 4 by paying duty on ad valorem basis, as the Department was treating them as integrated steel plant and hence not eligible for operation under Section 3A of the Act. If for the purpose of Section 3A, the appellants were being treated as integrated steel plant, they have to be treated as integrated steel plant for the Notification No.13/2000-CE also. It was also pleaded on behalf of the appellant that during the period of dispute, Section 4 had been amended and during that period, the place of removal in terms of Section 4(3)(c) only covered a facto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... common premises having a common boundary wall, the work force is common and for both the plants, there is one single registration under the Factories Act. There is common enterance and exist for the two plants situated on one piece of land within a common boundary wall. It is also not disputed that both the plants are owned by the same company - the appellant. Even though in the registration certificate earlier issued for billets, the assessee's name was mentioned as 'Osil Steel Works', it is not the Department's case that Osil Steel Works has existence separate from the appellants. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Meerut vs Dharampur Sugar Mills (supra), a number of different plant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
