TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 136
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder: - "I confirm the appropriation of the total amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- paid by M/S. Steelfab Building System, Survey No. 60, opp. M/S. Gulf Oil, Khanvel Road, Silvassa during the course of investigation. It is to be adjusted against the aforesaid demand." For the confirmation of the above demand the case of the department is that the appellant manufacture captively crane and cleared for captive consumption. 1.1. The contention of the Adjudicating Authority is that even though crane was cleared within the factory the same is clearance and attract Central Excise Duty. Accordingly, the appellant have evaded the Excise Duty eligible on the crane manufactured and cleared clandestinely within the factory. 2. Shri Anil Gidwani learned Ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....87 (27) ELT 0466 (T) Mohan Anand Reported In 1991 (53) ELT 096 (T) Super Forgings And Steel Ltd. V. CCE-2007 (208) ELT 153 Jay Yushin Ltd V. CCE-2000 (119) ELT 718 (Tri.-LB) Ptc Industries Ltd V/S. Cce Jaipur-I-2003 (159) ELT 1046 (Tri. Del.) India Piston Ltd. V. C.C.E. - 2008 (221) E.L.T. 295 Savita Polymers Ltd. V. C.C.E. - 2009 (240) E.L.T. 616 Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. V. C.C.E. - 2007 (216) E.L.T. 389 Tennco India Pvt. Ltd. V. C.C.E. - 2009 (235) E.L.T. 105 SRF Ltd. V. C.C.E. - 2007 (220) E.L.T. 201 Bajaj Tempo Limited V/S. CCE Reported In 2001 (135) ELT 272, The Hon'ble Tribunal , Mumbai M/S. Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company 1995(78) ELT 401(SC) Aban Loyd Chiles Off Shore Ltd Reported In 2006-TIOL-97-SC-CUS M/S. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....general the goods manufactured and used within the factory is prima facie eligible for exemption Notification No. 67/95-CE. However, the said notification carries certain conditions and said conditions. However, in case of non-compliance of the condition the exemption shall not apply. On the scrutiny of the impugned order we find that though the adjudicating authority has given general remark about the captive consumption but the Notification No. 67/95-CE was neither explicitly mentioned nor it's conditions were verified. 4.1 We also find that the appellant have vehemently argued about the demand being time barred on the basis that the appellant have not suppressed any fact from the department mainly for the reason that the goods manufactu....