9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -section (1) of section 5A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), read with sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957), the Central Government being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts excisable goods, specified in Annexure-I to this notification (hereinafter referred to as the said goods), when brought in connection with - (a) the manufacture and packaging of articles into a hundred percent export oriented undertaking (hereinafter referred to as user industry); or ANNEXURE I 1. Capital goods and spares thereof. 2. Material handli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, a show cause notice was issued to the respondents demanding excise duty amounting to Rs. 12,05,504/- on furnace oil obtained by them from the manufacturers against CT-3 certificates issued by Central Excise officers on the basis of undertaking given by the respondents. The show cause notice was adjudicated confirming duty amount of Rs. 12,05,504/-. Further, a penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs (sic) was imposed on the respondents under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944/Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2001. The demand was in respect of furnace oil obtained during the period 25-9-1997 to 14-9-1998. The respondents filed an appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals) who held that the furnace oil is of the nature of consumables and therefore the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tile units as approved by the Commissioner of Customs on the recommendation of the Development Commissioner." 4. The argument of the A.R. thus is that the furnace oil needed for producing steam was brought under the scope of the exemption under Notification No. 1/95-C.E. only with effect from 15-9-1998 and the demand relates to the period prior to this amendment. 5. The AR also pointed out that this is a case where the respondents have obtained material giving an undertaking to account the goods as per the provisions in notification and when the goods have not been used as specified in the notification, there cannot be time-bar for raising the demand. The argument of the respondents that they filed returns with the department ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as affirmed by Supreme Court as reported at 2009 (238) E.L.T. A24 (S.C.); (ii) Vanasthali Textile Industries v. CCE - 2007 (218) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). 7. Further, he argues that the show cause notice was issued on the ground that the furnace oil obtained was not properly accounted as required under Rule 196 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The respondents have fully accounted for the entire quantity of furnace oil obtained as used in boilers in connection with their manufacturing activity and submitted returns to the department. The contention now raised is not about accounting but is on the issue that the goods itself was not covered by the notification and the CT-3 certificates issued with the concurrence of the Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
