TMI Blog1997 (4) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other at Dahanu. In the Bharuch unit the appellant was manufacturing transformers and active parts of 10 KVA transformers falling under erstwhile T.I. 68 and manufacturing transformers in Dahanu unit. The dispute in this appeal relates to clearances of active parts of 10 KVA Transformers manufactured in the Bharuch unit and removed to the Dahanu unit on payment of central excise duty, availing benefit of Notification 120/75 (Invoice Procedure). Scrutiny of RG 1 registers, Gate Passes as well as Invoices by the audit officers showed that during the period 1-3-1984 to 30-4-1984, 10 KVA active parts of transformers were cleared to the Dahanu Unit at Rs. 11,200 or Rs. 12,050 per piece, while there was one clearance to an independent buyer at Ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s grounds. However, the Additional Collector passed the impugned order confirming the demand. Hence the present appeal. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant at the outset stated that on account of Section 8 of the Central Excise (Amendment) Act 1985, all proceedings pending as on 27-12-1985 with the Assistant Collector shall stand transferred to the Collector of Central Excise who may proceed with such proceedings from the stage at which it was on the commencement of the amending Act and, therefore, the Additional Collector could not have issued a fresh show cause notice. Section 8 of the amending Act only required the pending proceeding to be continued by the Collector of Central Excise. It did not prohibit the Collector or Additional Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereon, provided that the procedure set out in Chapter X of the Rules has been followed. The goods in question attracted erstwhile T.I. 68. They were manufactured in the Bharuch factory of the appellant and intended for use in the Dahanu Division of the appellant. In this view the appellant was clearly entitled to the benefit of Notification 118/75 and could have cleared the goods without payment of duty. However, as a matter of fact, the appellant was paying duty though not at the price at which identical goods were sold to an independent buyer. It is also brought to our notice that Dahanu Division was availing set-off of the duty paid on the goods transferred to Dahanu Division. In the light of these two circumstances, it is not possible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
