9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on cannot be invoked. However, a part of the demand is raised within the normal period (March, 2000). The Commissioner justifies invocation of larger period. We have perused paras 21 and 22 referred to by the Commissioner but we do not find anything that suggests that the appellant suppressed any facts. We observe that the machine parts on which exemption under Notification No. 67/95 is availed were used in the maintenance of capital goods captively. The capital goods in turn were used in or in relation to manufacture of final products i.e. motor vehicles/parts which are dutiable. The Supreme Court in the case of Escort Ltd. v. CCE,[ 2004 (8) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT] has decided as to what constitute final product. Thus, applying to the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nery. The appellants claimed benefit of Notification No. 67/95, dated 16-3-1995 on these goods and were regularly mentioning this fact in the RT-12 filed by them during the disputed period i.e. January 96 to March, 2000. The Department did not dispute such availment. Notification No. 67/95, dated 16-3-95, inter alia, reads as follows: Exemption to all capital goods and inputs if captively consumed within the factory of production. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5(A) of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944, the Central Government being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do hereby exempts : - (i) capital goods as defined in the Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 manufactured ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t; that the bar in Notification No. 67/95 is applicable; that the extended period of limitation is available to the Department; that in any case the entire period involved is not time barred as part of it is covered in the normal period of limitation and that impugned order is legal and correct and so should be upheld. 6. The issue revolves round on as to the correct meaning of the expression final products occurring in Notification No. 67/95 and whether there is suppression on the part of the appellant. In so far as the issue of limitation is concerned, we observe that the appellant had been disclosing the fact that he was availing of the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 as reflected in the RT-12 indicating the inputs and the final produc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
