TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shop the appellant manufactured certain equipment and components and claims manufacture of equipment and components for repairs and maintenance of its machineries and component parts thereof required for captive use. The appellant manufactured components and parts and cleared some of them after paying Central Excise duty. However, some parts are brought to its main plant stating that they were meant for repairs and maintenance of the main plant. The appellant availed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 281/86, dated 24-4-1986. Three SCNs were issued to the appellant asking them to explain as to why duty should not be demanded from them under Rules 9(2), 196(1) of the Central Excise Rules read with proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nger period did not arise. He, therefore, prays that on this count alone, the demand is time-barred and prays that the demand may be set aside and consequently, the penalty should also go. 4. Shri Ashok Mehta, ld. DR appearing for the Respondent Commissioner submits that the applicant had mis-declared the classification of the goods and had also mis-declared that they will be required for maintenance of the machinery installed in the plant. He submits that mis-declaration was complete. Ld. DR also submits that the demand has been raised under Rule 196 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. He submits that Rule 196(1) is a self-contained code for demand of duty in cases where goods are not properly accounted for. He submits that the SCN alleges ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nance and repairs of the machinery installed and also by mis-classifying the goods. We note that the contention of the ld. DR is correct inasmuch as the goods were being removed without payment of duty though they were not used for maintenance and repairs of machinery installed in the factory. Wagons cannot be termed as installed machinery in the factory. The Hon ble Patna High Court in the case of TISCO v. U.O.I. reported in 1988 (33) E.L.T. 297 held that second proviso to Notification No. 118/75 as amended by Notification No. 105/82 specifically denied the benefit conferred by the notification, if the goods manufactured in a factory were complete machinery meant for production or processing of goods even if they were intended for use in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
