Tribunal grants appeal based on limitation, relieving appellant from duty demand and penalties.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal solely on the grounds of limitation, providing relief to the appellant regarding the duty demand and penalties imposed for steel formers consumed during a specific period. The decision was based on the absence of mis-declaration or suppression of facts by the appellant, coupled with the circular issued by the Board in 2003. The Tribunal deemed the demand invoking the extended time limit as unwarranted, leading to the appeal's success without delving into the case's substantive merits.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against Commissioner's order dated 13-8-2004.
2. Captive consumption exemption for steel formers.
3. Demand of duty and penalty imposed.
4. Claim of excisability of steel formers.
5. Time-barred demand.
6. Decision on appeal based on limitation.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal against the Commissioner's order dated 13-8-2004. The appellant, a manufacturer of ingots and billets of non-alloy steel, operated under a compounded levy scheme from 1-9-1997. The issue revolved around the captive consumption exemption for steel formers used in the manufacturing process. The original authority had confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 47,031.32 on steel formers consumed during September 1998 to March 2000, along with penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision.

Regarding the excisability of steel formers, the appellant argued they believed the items were non-excisable until a later clarification by the Board in 2003. They contended that the demand issued in March 2004 for the period up to March 2000 was time-barred. The Tribunal examined the submissions and records, finding no mis-declaration or suppression of facts by the appellant. The show cause notice was based on a circular from 2003. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal held that the demand invoking the extended time limit was unwarranted. Consequently, the appeal was allowed solely on the grounds of limitation, without delving into the case's merits.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on the basis of limitation, providing consequential relief to the appellant. The operative part of the order was pronounced in open court, bringing closure to the matter without further exploration of the case's substantive aspects.

---