TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 793
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt. On the strength of intelligence gathered that the appellant had engaged in unauthorised manufacture and removal of pressure tanks meant for the storage and transportation of carbon dioxide without payment of duty, officers of the Central Excise visited the factory premises on 14.02.1992. Pursuant to such verification, the Department was of the view that the activity of the appellant by which they carried out insulation of the pressured vessel amounted to manufacture and that the appellant is liable to pay duty on such product cleared by them. So also, the appellant had not paid duty of FRP Sheets. Show Cause Notice dated 03.08.1992 was issued to the appellant proposing to demand duty on FRP Sheets as well as the pressure tanks invoking ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inal Authority also confirmed the demand of Excise duty to the tune of Rs.2,92,237/- and imposed penalty of Rs.30,000/-. Aggrieved by such order, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 5. The Ld. counsel Shri M.N. Bharathi appeared and argued for the appellant. It is submitted that the Tribunal vide earlier Final Order No. 213/1993 dated 18.06.1993 had already set aside the demand on the ground of limitation. The issue was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for the limited purpose of verifying whether the activity amounts to manufacture as the issue was recurring in nature. It is submitted that the appellant is not pressing the issue on merits in this appeal, as to whether the activity amounts to manufacture. As the demand has alr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nufactured to the specifications as required under the Statics and Mobil Pressure Vessels (Unfired) Rules, 1981 and the same had acquired the attributes of a vessel for compressed or liquefied gas. Since the clearance has been made from an exempted unit it would appeared to be of no consequence whether the tariff heading shown in the gate pass is 73.09 or 73.11 and what is to be noted is that the vessel which was received by the appellants was to the desired specifications for storage of compressed or liquefied gas. As it is the appellants had carried out this operation in the open in the factory and have filed papers in the paper book to show that they had removed the goods under delivery chalans and maintained all the records and also had....