TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 1012
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proceedings. Under this OIO Adjudicating authority has denied the benefit of Exemption Notf No. 182/87-CE dt 10/7/87 and confirmed a demand of Rs. 1, 58, 38,712/- against the appellant. Besides a penalty of Rs. 10 lakh has also been imposed upon the appellant under Rule-9 (2) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules- 1944 read with Rule- 173 Q of the said Rules. 2. Sh. Rajiv Agarwal (CA) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the period of dispute is from 1/3/1986 to 27/7/1988. That appellant is manufacturing Coal Tubs in the mines. That these Coal Tubs before and after the above disputed period were exempted and appellant was under the bonafide belief that during the intermediate disputed period also their product must have been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... admissibility of credit. Following order was passed by this bench while remanding the case back to the Adjudicating authority:- "2. Arguing on the appeal Dr. Samir Chakraborty, ld. Advocate submits that the appellants are purchasing various parts namely coal tubs without wheel, wheel and axles, C & D links, tub blocks etc. and assembling these parts in their workshop/colliery. He submits that such process of fitting and assembling of component of coal tubs cannot amount to a manufacturing activity within the meaning and scope of Section 2(f) of Central Excises Act, 1944 inasmuch as no new product is brought into existence by such process of fitting. This contention of the appellants has not been accepted by the Commissioner on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....activity. Accordingly we fully agree with the findings of the Commissioner that fitting and assembling of separately identifiable products results into an altogether separate identifiable final product having a specific identity, name and use. Accordingly we reject the said plea of the appellants. 4. It has also been argued before us that the demand confirmed by the Commissioner also includes the demands in respect of the repaired coal tubs. Dr. Chakraborty has argued that the coal tubs so manufactured by them need continuous repairing. Such a repairing activity cannot be held to be a process of manufacture and the demand cannot be raised on the same account. We agree with the above submission of the ld. Advocate. No duty is leviab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....course of hearing before us appellant has conceded the inadmissibility of Notf No. 182/87-CE & Modvat Credit. Appellant did not press on the point of limitations before this bench when the remand order dt 1/5/2000 was passed and the remand directions were limited to the observations made in that order. Time bar aspect was also not raised before the adjudicating authority by the appellant and no findings on that aspect could be given by the Adjudicating authority. It is thus observed from the case records that appellant did not press on the time bar aspect in the earlier proceedings before and also did not raise the same before the adjudicating authority. Appellant is a public sector undertaking and it is not ethical on their part now to agi....