TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 871X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.67/95-CE dated 16.3.95. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the appellant had filed a classification list in respect of aluminium scrap classifying it under sub-heading 7602.00 both for home consumption and for captive consumption, a fact clearly acknowledged in the Commissioner’s order. That classification list also claimed the benefit of the above notification. appellant has also made out a formidable case against the demand of duty on the ground of limitation. The impugned demand is for the period from April 1995 to March 1999 and the same was raised in show-cause notice issued on 26.4.2000. The show-cause notice invoked the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act but did not allege fraud, coll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 kgs of aluminium scrap valued at Rs.2,06,69,085/-, which was allegedly cleared to BFEW for job work. Show-cause notice alleged that the scrap should have been cleared on payment of duty in terms of Rule 57F(3)/57F(4)/57F(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 when cleared to the job worker for conversion into ingots. It also demanded interest on duty under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act besides proposing penalties under Section 11AC of the Act and under the Central Excise Rules. The assessee replied to the show-cause notice by submitting inter alia that they had given only a labour contract to BFEW for conversion of the scrap into ingots and that such conversion was done by them in the same factory wherein the scrap had been generat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant s production supervisor. BFEW were required to deploy the required number of labourers depending upon the quantity of the scrap to be melted. BFEW would be paid labour charges at specified rates per kilogram of scrap melted. Apart from these provisions of the contract, the written submissions filed by the appellant before the Commissioner were clearly to the effect that the aluminium scrap generated during the course of manufacture of the final product in their factory was not cleared to any place outside the factory for conversion into ingots on job work basis. The appellant categorically submitted that the scrap was converted into small billets in a separate melting shed within the approved premises of their factory by employing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble case against the demand of duty on the ground of limitation. The impugned demand is for the period from April 1995 to March 1999 and the same was raised in show-cause notice issued on 26.4.2000. The show-cause notice invoked the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act but did not allege fraud, collusion or suppression of facts and the like. The notice alleged that certain provisions of the Central Excise Rules were contravened by the assessee, but even in this context, no intent to evade payment of duty was attributed to the assessee. In other words, the show-cause notice did not allege any of the ingredients of the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act. It appears, the department could not allege anything of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
