TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 1698
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 is seeking to change the cause title from the name of the appellant from M/s. Sesa Sterlite Ltd. to M/s. Vedanta Ltd. Appellants produced certificate of Registrar of Companies. Both the applications for change of cause title are allowed. The name of appellant in the cause title is changed from "The Madras Aluminum Company Ltd. to Sesa Sterlite Ltd. and from M/s. Sesa Sterlite to Vedanta Ltd. Registry is directed to amend the cause title in so far as the appellant's name shall be read as Vedanta Ltd. Both the MAs are allowed. 2. The main appeal is taken up for hearing. The issue relates to demand of excise duty on the goods cleared under Rule 173H and Rule 57F (4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant has received the raw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....apse on the part of appellant is recorded. There is no dispute on the fact that re-melted goods received under Rule 173H and Rule 57(4) were subsequently cleared on payment of duty. The only procedural lapse is that replacement of goods was made out of freshly produced metal. He also submits that the limitation period is not applicable as officers visited on 10.2.2000 and notice was issued on 10.2.2004 after a lapse of four years. 4. On the other hand, Ld. AR reiterates the findings at para 5.5. of the OIA. The date of receipt of defective sheets on the appellant premises is 22.5.99 to 27.5.99 with respect to goods supplied whereas processed goods despatched were manufactured even earlier to the receipt of the inputs under rule 57F (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the period 13.5.99 to 16.5.99. The appellants have set up integrated aluminium plant where they have the facility of manufacturing of aluminium products from primary ore stage to the finished goods viz. aluminium Ingots, Rods, Sheets. They also carry out re-processing or remelting of the scrap and this is only a miniscule activity and done only when their finished goods are returned by the suppliers. I also find that the finished goods manufactured out of returned goods were subsequently cleared on payment of duty as normal clearance. Therefore duty cannot be demanded twice there is revenue-neutrality. 6. Further, the appellants pleaded strong case on the limitation issue. I find that they have filed D3 declaration intimation was duly file....