2012 (12) TMI 349

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... be upheld by confirming the demands as held by Member (Technical)." 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products, namely bars and angles, classifiable under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff. In one unit, the appellants are engaged in the process of rolling of billets and manufacture of bars of different sizes and in the second unit, the appellants also manufacture bars. In the course of manufacture of bars and angles from billets, some waste and scrap were generated and the appellants were clearing this scrap to independent buyers as well as to the other unit on payment of duty. During audit, it was found that the appellants were clearing waste and scrap to the o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Siddeshwar Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune III reported in 2009 (248) ELT 290 (Tri.-Mumbai), whereby the extended period was held to be not invocable in view of the revenue neutrality. The appellants also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. vs. CCE, Vapi reported in 2005 (192) ELT 852 (Tri.-Mumbai), whereby the same view has been taken. 5. The contention of the Revenue is that the demand of duty for the extended period cannot be resisted by the manufacturer on the premises that whatever duty paid by them would ultimately be available as modvat credit to the other unit. The Revenue relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Mumbai vs. Mahindra & Mahi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt buyers. There is no evidence to show that the appellants were under the reasonable belief that they were not required to disclose the fact of clearance of waste and scrap to the other unit at lower price. 8. The appellants relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Siddeshwar Textile Mills (supra). I find that in this case the Tribunal, after taking into account the fact that the proviso to Section 11A of the Act has not been invoked in the show cause notice, held in favour of the manufacturer. In the case of Sterrlite Industries (supra), the Tribunal held in favour of the manufacturer in respect of extended period of limitation on the ground that the manufacturer had clearly disclosed to the Revenue that the facility of ....