TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 491
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant carries on the business of manufacture and sale of various iron, steel and allied products falling under Chapter 72, 73, 74, 86 and 23 etc. of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985. For the said purpose, the appellant has an integrated steel plant at Durgapur in the State of West Bengal. 2.1 During the material period i.e. April, 2003 to December, 2010, the appellant used Angles, Joists, Channel, TMT Bars and Rods, Rounds, etc. all falling under different Sub-headings of Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff, which were manufactured in the steel plant itself for either repair and maintenance of existing plant and machinery or for the purposes of indirectly using....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s passed. 2.4 Against the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. The ld.Sr.Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner is based on incorrect appreciation of the true terms and scope of the said Notifications, contrary to the materials on record and/or are inferences without disclosing any basis or material in support thereof. He submitted that the said goods has been used by the appellant in the Plant Civil Engineering Department for construction of roads and fencing in the Coal Chemical Complex, Material Recovery Department, Power Street and other parts of the plant were used by the Plant Civil Engineering Department in or in relation to manufacture of dutiable final products. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....od even otherwise. Further, he submits that the duty of demand covered by the show cause notice dated March 5, 2008 for the period April 2003 to December 2007 being a part of duty, is barred by limitation. He therefore submits that the duty, interest and penalty imposed on the appellant, are not sustainable. 4. On the other hand, the ld.A.R. for the Revenue, supported the impugned order. 5. Heard both the parties and considered the submissions. 6. We find that the said goods on which the duty has been demanded, have been used in repair and maintenance of existing plant and machinery, which were ultimately engaged in the manufacture of final product. Therefore, for the part of the said goods used in manufacture and repair and mainte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court has observed as under : "14. Applying the aforesaid test to the facts of this case, it is apparent that the use of railway tracks is related to the actual production of goods and without the use of the said railway track, commercial production would be inexpedient. 15. In the instant case, the manner in which railway track materials have been used by the appellant was explained by the appellant before the Commissioner and veracity thereof was accepted by the Commissioner. Therefore, without any fear of contradiction, we may note the exact process that is involved : "These railway tracks used in transporting hot metal in ladle placed on ladle car from blast furnace to pig casting machine through ladle car wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pig iron. 18. We find from the order of the Commissioner that in spite of taking note of the aforesaid use of the railway tracks and accepting the same as correct, the Commissioner denied the relief to the appellant on an extraneous ground, i.e., railway tracks were used for other purposes as well, namely, apart from conveying hot metal and hot pigs, it was used for carrying raw materials and finished goods as well. This can hardly be a ground to deny the relief inasmuch as by incidental use of the railway tracks for some other innocuous purpose, it does not lose the character of being an integral part of the manufacturing process. The Commissioner has further observed in his order that the railway track is not utilised directly o....