Central excise exemption denied for captive-use storage tanks and FRP goods where late documents failed to dislodge duty evasion findings.

Exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. was found unavailable for MS storage tanks and FRP goods because the goods were manufactured in the factory and used captively, and the later-produced job-work agreement and invoice did not rebut that finding. The agreement had not been disclosed during the departmental visit, and the invoice was dated after inspection, so the documents were treated as insufficient to negate the duty-evasion finding. MS storage tanks were also treated as classifiable under Heading 73.09, which was excluded from capital goods for the purpose of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. On that basis, reversal of the duty demand and penalty was held unjustified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. for MS storage tanks and FRP goods, and whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in reversing the duty demand and penalty on the basis of the alleged job-work agreement and invoice.

Analysis: The goods were found manufactured in the factory and used captively, and the assessee's reliance on a later-produced agreement and invoice was rejected because the agreement had not been disclosed at the time of the departmental visit and the invoice was dated after the inspection. The exemption claim was also untenable because MS storage tanks fell under Heading 73.09, which was excluded from the definition of capital goods for the purpose of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, and the documents relied upon did not dislodge the finding of duty evasion.

Conclusion: The respondents were not entitled to the exemption, and the reversal of duty demand and penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) was unjustified.

---