TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 433
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Capacity (EDC) below 1800-CC manufactured by respondent during the period 1.8.1996 to 1.06.1998 is exigible to excise duty. 2. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original passed by CCE Chandigarh. In the impugned order the CCE has come to the conclusion that it is not established that TA is an excisable product emerging at intermediate stage in the manufacture of Tractors by the respondent. The proceedings initiated for excise duty demand of Rs. 5,50,99,810.00 on T.A. was thus dropped. 3. The facts of the case in brief are as under:- The respondent is engaged in manufacture of Tractors of EDC 1800-CC or below and also EDC above 1800-CC. They are availing Cenvat/Modvat credit on the inputs used in manufacture of Tractor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entral Excise Act, 1944 and why penalty should not be imposed under Section 11AC and why interest under Section 11AB should not be demanded and recovered and also why penalty should not be imposed under Section 9(2),173Q and Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules. 5. After adjudication, the proceedings were dropped by the Commissioner, Chandigarh holding that no identifiable product such as TA has emerged in the intermediate stage in the manufacture of Tractor which is exigible to duty. Aggrieved by this Order-in-Original dated 1.5.2004 the Revenue has filed this appeal. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant Shri Ranjan Khanna submitted that the dutiability of TA needs to be appreciated in light of full facts and records. It is his case t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6 and Civil Appeal Nos. 9469-9470 of 2010 judgment dated 29.4.2015. 7. The submissions made for the respondent by learned Counsel Shri B.L. Narsimhan was two fold. Firstly, that TA was not something which came in to existence in the manufacture of Tractor but was only part of continuous process of manufacture. He laid much thrust on the finding of the CCE Chandigarh that no identifiable product such as, TA has emerged at intermediate stage in the process of manufacture of Tractor by respondent. According to him so-called TA was only an aggregate of various sub assemblies which connected the engine of Tractor with its wheels. He pointed out that the TA which is relied on by the revenue as an excisable product was only components in the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Tractors, 9. The next issue to be addressed is whether the extended period of limitation can be invoked in the present case. The period of dispute is from 1.8.1996 to 1.6.1998 for which SCN has been issued on 31/8/2001. The learned Departmental Representative strenuously argued that there is fraud, wilful misstatement and suppression of facts on the part of the respondent as the respondents knew that T.A. was marketable and as such had suppressed this fact while claiming exemption of excise duty on the Tractors below 1800-CC. That therefore it is a fit case to invoke the extended period of limitation. 10. Against this the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that respondent was under bonafide belief that TA emerging as int....