TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (1) TMI 596
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plant at Chhatisgarh. They started paying duty on such goods w.e.f. October 2005 and this was done till August 2007. There was no confusion by the appellant as to its duty liability till the Department issued the show cause notice on 15-1-07. On 15-1-07 when the show cause notice was issued on the ground that this appellant is not entitled to the input credit in respect of the goods used in manufacture of ore concentrate for the reason that the activities carried out by the appellant does not amount to manufacture, dispute crept up and confusion was created by the Department. Grievance of the appellant before the learned Adjudicating Authority against show cause notice dated 15-1-07 was that the activity undertaken by the Chhatisgarh plant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant, that has gone to its Vizag plant and the finished goods manufactured by the Vizag plant has suffered duty. The appellant refers to page 100 of the paper appeal book to prove its stand that duty was paid as per details, by the Visakhapatnam plant. He further refers two judgments of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Gayathri Textiles and others v. CCE, Salem reported in 2006-TIOL-1710-CESTAT-MAD and in the case of Trico Process Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-III reported in 2005 (189) E.L.T. 126 (Tri.-Mumbai). With the support of these two judgments, his submission is that when the appellant has bona fide and the finished goods has ultimately suffered duty at Visakhapatnam, confusion created by Department shall not make the Appellant to suf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant cannot be taken into consideration at this stage. But, he has nothing on record to show that whether the authorities while adjudicating the matter have impleaded the Visakhapatnam plant as the necessary party to the adjudicating proceeding. 4. Learned DR further submits that there is judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. M.M. Khambhatwala reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) and in the case of Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. v. Thane Municipal Corporation reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 454 (S.C.) which discards plea of the appellant without giving any weightage to the plea of duty liability discharged by the Visakhapatnam plant. The procedure laid down by law for the purpose ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....16B of Central Excise Rules, 1944 redundant. Therefore pre-deposit may be ordered. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. 7. We have patiently heard both the sides on the aforesaid rival submissions for long time. The only question comes to our mind is that during the pendency of appeal for the period September 2007 to October 2007 should the appellant be asked to make pre-deposit on the value addition to the intermediate goods while its Vizag plant has discharged duty liability on finished product as averred by learned counsel for Appellant. Therefore, we took pain to examine the entire case minutely. It is admitted fact on record that the appellant was discharging its duty liability on iron ore concentrate prior to S....