TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 296
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8] (ii) Order-in-Original NO. 47-51/Commr/Bol/07 dated August 29, 2007 [Appeal No. E/10/2008] 2. By both the said orders the Commissioner dropped the proceedings initiated against the respondent, Durgapur Steel Plant, Durgapur (in short, "DSP") by 27 and 5 show cause notices respectively. 3. The periods involved are from March, 1994 to June, 2006 and April, 1993 to June, 1998 respectively. 4. The appeals have been preferred by the Revenue. First Appeal No. E/49/2008 5.1 In all the 27 show cause notices, the same or similar facts are involved but for different periods. 5.2 DSP is, inter alia, engaged in manufacture of pig iron and steel scraps falling under chapter Sub-Headings 7201.00 and 7204.90 of the Central Excise Tariff in its ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pted from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon or are chargeable to nil rate of duty". 5.5 On the same analogy, in some other show cause notices, it was alleged that DSP had not paid duty on inputs like blooms, billets, bars, channels, joists, slag etc. which were used in the manufacture of machinery items, which in turn were further used within the factory of production for repair/maintenance of the machinery installed therein, upon availing benefit of exemption under Notification Nos. 67/95 and 65/95 respectively. Duty was demanded on the intermediate goods, i.e., the steel scraps on the ground of alleged wrong availment of exemption under Notification No. 67/95, inasmuch as they were used in the manufacture of capital goods/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Central Excise duty. 8. Heard Shri S.Mukhopadhyay, ld.D.R. for the Revenue as well as Dr.Samir Chakraborty, ld.Sr.Advocate and Shri Abhijeet Biswas, ld.Advocate for the Respondents. 9. The ld.D.R. for the Revenue has reiterated the grounds of appeals filed by the Revenue. 10. Dr.Samir Chakraborty, ld.Sr.Advocate, on behalf of the Respondents, submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the adjudicating authority. It was submitted that the dispute in both the impugned orders is with reference to the captive consumption of certain goods within the factory. The Pig iron and the scrap which are starting point in the chain of manufacture of goods in the integrated steel plant of the respondents, have been used to manufacture ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duty on pig iron and steel scrap made in the show cause notices are sustainable ? (ii) Whether on a correct and proper interpretation of Notification No. 67/95 (and its predecessor Notification No. 217/86-CE) and Notification No. 202/88 dated May 20, 1988, the availment of exemption under both sets of Notification by DSP was correct as held by the Commissioner or the contention in the said show cause notices that the availment of exemption of duty on pig iron manufactured and captively consumed for manufacture of fluted mould, bottom plates etc. and consequent demand based thereon on the pig iron are sustainable ? 12. The Notification No.217/86-CE as well as successor Notification 67/95 grants exemption to goods, which are captively cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ely, when certain goods are cleared from the factory, only those goods are to be considered as final products, which are liable to payment of duty. The Tribunal held that so long as duty is paid on the final product, the mere fact that the duty was not paid on the intermediate products, would not disentitle the manufacture from the benefit of Notification 217/86-CE as well as successor Notification 67/95-CE. Similar views have been taken by the Apex Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. (supra). The ratio of the above decision is squarely applicable in the present case. 14. The CBEC vide Circular dated 06.12.1993 (surpa) has also clarified that the benefit of Exemption Notification 217/86 (Notification No.67/95) is to be permitted to intermedi....