1994 (7) TMI 153

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....equired to be replaced from time to time. Therefore, the moulds are manufactured in their own factory and utilised for repair and maintenance in the same or another factory of the manufacturer. 3. As such while filing the classification list they had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 281/86 and the classification lists were duly approved and they were also allowed to clear the goods under Chapter X procedure for use in other factories of the manufacturer. 4. Subsequently, show cause notices were issued in 1990 and 1993 relating to the period beyond six months of the date of issue of respective show cause notices on various grounds alleging inter alia suppression and mis-statement of facts. The benefit was allowed in re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ating captive consumption and the facts had been verified by the officer on AR-3A and therefore the show cause notices were time barred. 9. Learned DR strongly objected. He stated that in the classification list the appellants had used the word captive consumption by which it is normally understood that the goods were made to be used in the factory of production but they have actually been utilised in another factory of the manufacturer. It is also a question whether the other units could be considered as a factory of the manufacturer and a further question is involved whether the replacement of such moulds could be considered as amounting to repair and maintenance of the machinery used for production of glass bottles. Therefore, at....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as the Collector's coercive action is concerned, we also note that the Ld. Counsel has been able to show to us a letter addressed to the Asstt. Collector dated 25-3-1994 in which he informs the officer that his Stay Application has already been fixed for hearing on 26-4-1994. 15. At this stage, Ld. DR sought leave to mention that in the original Stay Application, the prayer was with reference to the waiver of pre-deposit of penalty and a supplementary application was moved only after the applicants had in response to a request by the Department paid the amount quantified by themselves and agreed upon by the Department. 16. We observe that it was not fair on the part of the officers to go to this length once a date of hearin....