2001 (12) TMI 168

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s. 10.00 lakhs for their redemption. 2. The appellants have been manufacturing paper covered copper strips and also undertaking production of the said goods on job work basis. In respect of the job work. The appellants received copper rods/bars from the suppliers which are converted into rectangular copper strips and then insulated with insulating paper. The insulating paper is imported by the appellants and utilised in their manufacture of the final products as well as in respect of their job work. As and when the appellants use the said insulating paper for job work basis they reverse the Modvat credit already taken on the said insulating paper. It is the case of the appellants that they have been filing classification lists regularly an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t withdrew the said show cause notice with liberty to the appropriate officer to issue a fresh show cause notice on the same ground. On 28-1-1998, a show cause notice was issued stating inter alia that for the period September, 1993 to September, 1996, the assessee was processing and manufacturing excisable goods, namely paper covered copper strips out of the raw material copper rods/bars/strips supplied by Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Bhopal and Jhansi and the assessee had wrongly claimed full exemption from payment of Central Excise duty on the activity of job work by availing exemption under Notification No. 214/86 and have suppressed the fact that they have carried out manufacturing activity under the guise of job work. The reasons me .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ment, when a Notice of Motion in Writ Petition No. 784/1978 was taken out. Further it was emphasised by the Senior Counsel that when the Writ Petition No. 1168/94 was filed, the Notice issued on 28-2-1994 signed by the Superintendent was withdrawn and that the department could not have taken the plea of suppression, and lack of knowledge of the process undertaken by the assessee. He therefore states that the entire proceedings before us are barred by limitation. He also argued about the liability of the principal manufacture to pay duty. He also touched upon some points decided by the Supreme Court in Prestige Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Collector - 1994 (73) E.L.T. 497. 5. The learned DR would reiterate the grounds mentioned in the impugned o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X