2004 (6) TMI 343

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture arms & ammunitions and parts thereof which Factory in the manufacture of parts of ammunition which are ultimately used for defence purposes; that simply because the Appellants do not have capacity of conversion of brass scrap into strips and sends scrap to job workers for conversion into strips it does not mean that scrap in question is not intended for consumption by the Members of Armed Forces of the Union or by such Ordnance Factory. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that show cause notice dated 30-8-2001 was issued for demanding the duty for the period from 1-8-96 to 31-3-2001 and show cause notice dated 27-1-2001 was issued for demanding duty for the period from 1-4-2001 to 30-6-200....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has been dismissed by the Supreme Court as reported in 2002 (142) E.L.T. A283. 3. Countering the arguments Mrs. Charul Baranwal, learned SDR, submitted that Notification No. 70/92 provides exemption to the goods manu- factured by the job workers and not to the scrap removed by the Appellants; that therefore, the Notification No. 70/92 as amended is not available to the Appellants; that Notification No. 62/95 (Srl. No. 1) exempts all goods if produced in Ordnance Factory and intended for consumption by the Members of Armed Forces of the Union or by such Ordnance Factories; that the scrap admittedly has been removed by the Appellants to the job workers and which cannot be said to have been consumed by the Members of Armed Forces or by....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... nowhere mentions that scrap is being removed by the Appellants without payment of duty; that in any case said letter was never received by the Asst. Collector; that the Commissioner in the impugned order has specifically mentioned that the Asst. Commissioner, Jabalpur had informed that letter dated 5-9-95 purported to have been sent by the Assessee was not received in his office. The learned SDR, further, submitted that undertakings filed with the jurisdictional authority at Bombay having control over job workers' factory were required to be given for the purpose of availing exemption on strips and these undertakings were not given to the Excise authorities having jurisdiction over the Appellants' unit; that even in these undertakings it h....