1991 (9) TMI 178 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal affirms duty denial for Raw Briquette Chips & lignite dust under Notification, classification under sub-heading 2702.00 upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the decision to deny exemption from duty for Raw Briquette Chips and lignite dust under Notification No. 179/85-C.E. as amended by ... Demand - Limitation Issues Involved:1. Eligibility for exemption from payment of duty u/s Notification No. 179/85-C.E. as amended by Notification No. 78/86-CE.2. Classification of Raw Briquette Chips and lignite dust.3. Applicability of the Mines Act, 1952 to the Briquetting and Carbonisation plant.4. Limitation period for raising duty demands.Summary:Eligibility for Exemption:The appellants, Neyveli Lignite Corporation, claimed exemption from duty for Raw Briquette Chips and lignite dust u/s Notification No. 179/85-C.E., as amended by Notification No. 78/86-CE, arguing that these products fall under sub-heading 2702.00 and are produced in a mine. The Tribunal held that the Briquetting and Carbonisation (B & C) plant is not a mine as defined in the Mines Act, 1952, and therefore, the products are not eligible for the exemption.Classification of Raw Briquette Chips and Lignite Dust:The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision that Raw Briquette Chips and lignite dust are classifiable under sub-heading 2702.00 of CET Act, 1985. It was determined that these products are manufactured in a B & C plant licensed under the Factories Act and not in a mine, thus not qualifying for the exemption.Applicability of the Mines Act, 1952:The appellants contended that the B & C plant falls within the definition of a mine as per Section 2(j) of the Mines Act, 1952. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellants failed to produce a certificate from the Secretary to the Government, as required u/s 82 of the Mines Act, to conclusively determine if the B & C plant is a part of the mine. Therefore, the Tribunal could not accept the appellants' claim.Limitation Period for Raising Duty Demands:For Appeal No. 3803/89-C, the Tribunal found the duty demand for the period 1-4-1986 to 31-8-1986 to be time-barred, as the Department had already initiated proceedings on 27-2-1987 for a subsequent period. However, for Appeal No. 2900/88-C, the duty demand for the period 1-9-1986 to 31-1-1987 was confirmed as it was not contested on the grounds of limitation.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to deny the exemption u/s Notification No. 179/85-C.E. as amended by Notification No. 78/86-CE for Appeal No. 2900/88-C and confirmed the duty demand. The duty demands in Appeal No. 3803/89-C were set aside as time-barred.