TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 1012
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g 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 exempted. Learned CA appearing on behalf ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 ground that the process undertaken by the appellants results in emergence of new product ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bling 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 leviable on the repaired items. 5. Dr. Chakraborty has raised an alternative plea that the benefit of exempt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 agitate the time bar aspect afresh after conceding the same before us in the earlier proceedings. Reliance by the appellant....