TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parts. Certain parts of steam turbines are manufactured by the appellants within the factory. These parts are solely and principally used only for steam turbines. The appellants are also purchasing parts from outside which are duty paid parts of steam turbines. These parts are purchased by the appellants by placing order. 3. In respect of the parts of steam turbine which are manufactured and captively consumed, the appellants claimed exemption under Notification No. 217/86 dated 2-4-1986. In respect of those parts which are purchased from outside and on which duty has already been paid by the respective manufacturers of those parts, the appellants are availing the Modvat credit. Classification list have been filed by the appellants descri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no suppression of any information from the Department; that in the above circumstances, the longer period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A(1) cannot be invoked. In support of his contention he cites the case law reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 401, 1990 (45) E.L.T. 109, 1999 (105) E.L.T. 573, 1999 (105) E.L.T. 208 and 1997 (95) E.L.T. 590. Ld. Consultant therefore, submitted that in view of the above case law, the fact is that the entire demand is barred by limitation. 6. It was pleaded that in any case the Tribunal has been consistently holding that where the statutory documents filed by the appellants regularly are the documents relied in the SCN from time to time, longer period of limitation cannot be invoked. In support of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the appeal may be allowed, he submitted. 8. Ld. DR submits that the appellant had been manufacturing parts of items. He submits that some parts they were manufacturing and some parts they were purchasing from the market. He submits that there was a dispute about classification in regard to the parts manufactured by the appellant. He submits that classification list in which this dispute was resolved by the Department pertained to the period from 13-10-1992; that in respect of this classification list the items were classified under Chapter Heading 84.83. He, therefore, submits that atleast for the period from 13-10-1992 to March '93, the demand should be confirmed, as no limitation shall apply. 9. Ld. DR submits that in so far as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct in-as-much as the classification list was approved w.e.f. 13-10-1992 which has not been appealed against. 12. In so far as the demand on bought out items is concerned, we note that the appellants had been purchasing the bought out items. They were not manufacturing these items. At the time of clearance higher duty has been paid on the items as against the amount of credit taken on inputs and therefore, no further duty can be collected. In so far as adjustment of higher duty paid on bought out items and its adjustment against higher amount of differential duty demanded is concerned we note that this adjustment is not permissible as two sets are entirely different. In the circumstances; we hold that the demand of differential duty on bou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
