TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 422
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) and M/s Ashok Engineering & Foundry Works ("Ashok") are inter alia engaged in the manufacture of Power-Driven Pumps (also referred to as 'PD Pumps') and Ignition Combustion Engine (hereinafter referred to as "IC Engines") falling under Chapter Heading 8413 and 8408, respectively, of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The IC engines manufactured by the Appellants are captively consumed in the manufacturing of another product i.e. PD Pumps in the factory, and also sold separately in the market on payment of excise duty. In respect of IC engines which are captively consumed in the manufacture of PD Pumps, the Appellants are claiming benefit of exemption from excise duty under Notification No.67/95-E dated 16.03.1995. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty of IC engines. 1.2 The demand of duty in the present appeals is based on the denial of benefit of exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE to IC engines which are captively consumed in manufacture of PD pumps, on the ground that the PD pumps are not arising out of a process of manufacture and therefore, it cannot be held that the IC engines are used captively in manufacturing activity in terms of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In addition to PD Pumps, one of the Appellant M/s Ashok, also manufactures mono-block pumps. The only difference between mono-block pump and PD pump is that mono-block pump is smaller in size and the pump directly fits on the common crankshaft of IC Engine; whereas in PD pumps, the IC Engine and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een adjudicated vide Orders-In-Original dated 24.09.2021 whereby the Learned Principal Commissioner confirmed that the entire demand of duty proposed in all the show cause notices except for dropping of demands of Central Excise Duty on IC engines where the PD pumps were untimely cleared for export in respect of the both the appellants. Aggrieved by the impugned orders the appellants have filed the present appeals. 2. Shri Anand Nainawati, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the Principal Commissioner has completely relied on the case of M/s. Honda Seil Power Products - 2016 (332) ELT 222 (All) deliver by the Allahabad High Court without appreciate the significant difference between of that case and fact of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n dispute in the present case. the dispute in the present case is only pertains to IC Engines used in the manufacture of PD Pumps. He further submits that the demand for the June-2014 to April-2014 is barred by limitation as there is not suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. 2.3 He also submits that the similar issue has been considered by the lower Authorities in various following orders:- Parshwa Diesels Pvt. Ltd. Order-in-Appeal No. RAJ-EXCUS-000-APP-011- 012-2023 dated 30.01.2023 Prem Engineering Pvt Ltd. Order-in-Appeal No. RAJ-EXCUS-000-APP-013-014-2023 dated 31.01.2023 Shree Satya Industries Order-in-Appeal No. RAJ-EXCUS-000-APP-021-022-2023 dated 31.01.2023 Ameer International Order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ma Ltd. 2010 (259) ELT 673 (A.P.) Maintained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2011 (269) ELT A147 (SC) CCE v. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries 2008 (231) ELT 22 (SC) CCE, Jaipur v. Super Synotex India Ltd. 2014 (301) ELT 273 (SC) Union of India v. Uttam Steel Ltd. 2015 (319) ELT 598 (SC) CCE v. Diamond Scaffolding Co. 2011 (274) ELT 10 (Cal) Padmini Products v. Collector of Central Excise 1989 (43) ELT 195 (SC) Continental Foundation v. CCE 2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC) 3. Shri Rajesh Nathan, Learned Assistant Commissioner(AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused th....