9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of windmills during the material period. The ferrous waste and scrap which were generated during the course of manufacture of the final product were cleared without payment of duty during the period from 1-3-1994 to 18-8-1994. The department issued show-cause notice dated 21-9-1998 invoking the extended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of the appellants is that, in view of the decision of the apex court in W.P.I.L. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, U.P. [2005 (181) E.L.T. 359 (S.C.)], Notification No. 23/95-C.E. dated 16-3-1995 should be held to be clarificatory and retrospective so as to cover the period of dispute in this case. Learned counsel has put forth this case for the appellants and learned JCDR has c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tances that the apex court considered Notification No. 95/94 to be clarificatory. Their Lordships found that, by issuing that Notification, the Government was correcting its mistake or having omitted to specify parts of PD pumps in the earlier Notification No. 46/94-C.E. We find that an analogous situation is not obtaining in the instant case. The relevant exemption Notification was rescinded on 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on from payment of duty on ferrous waste and scrap during the period of dispute. 3. However, the appellants seem to have a good case on the ground of limitation. For the above period (1-3-1994 to 18-8-1994), duty on waste and scrap was demanded by the show-cause notice issued on 21-9-1988. It appears from the records that the appellant's factory was visited by officers of the department on 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d JCDR has not been able to rebut it either. 4. In the result, it is held that the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act was not invocable in this case. The demand of duty is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the penalty also gets vacated. The appeal stands allowed. (Operative portion of the order was pronounced in open Court on 11-3- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
