2026 (1) TMI 317

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ves' falling under Chapter Heading No. 86 and 'Traction Motor' falling under Chapter Heading No. 85 to the Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant availed the benefit of exemption as per Sl. No. 333 of Central Excise Tariff Notification No. 12/2012-C.E. dated 17.03.2012 on 'Traction Motor' and hence, central excise duty was not paid by them on removal of Traction Motor for captive consumption. 2. A scrutiny of the ER-1 Returns, along with the ER-6 Returns, filed by the appellant revealed certain discrepancies in the input and output quantity in respect of Traction Motors. On further enquiry, it was found that the appellant had not paid duty on the Traction Motors cleared by them "as such" to various zones of the In....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dian Railways and all the good are used by the Indian Railways, it is argued that the Traction Motors should be considered as used within the factory of production and therefore, eligible for the exemption provided under Notification No. 12/2012-C.E. In support of the above contentions, reliance is placed by the appellant on the following case-laws: - i. Ashok Kumar Tiwari v. Commissioner of Cus., C.Ex. & S.T., Allahabad [2017 (7) G.S.T.L. 49 (Tri. - All.)] ii. Wheel & Axle Plant v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Bangalore-II [2003 (1610 E.L.T. 843 (Tri. - Bang.)] 5.1. Further, The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the entire demand is barred by limitation as the period of dispute in this case is from April, 2012 to Ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellant is that the Indian Railways is a single unit and thus, the various zones of the Indian Railways, to which the goods viz. Traction Motors were cleared, should be considered as factories of the appellant. Accordingly, they contend that the benefit of Notification No. 12/2012-C.E. dated 17.03.2012 should be available to all the Traction Motors cleared to various zones of the Indian Railways. 8.1. We find that the benefit of the said Notification is available only when the goods viz. Traction Motors are used within the factory of production. It is an admitted fact that the goods in question were removed outside the factory of the appellant. Thus, we do not agree with the submission of the appellant that the various zones of the Indian....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Notification by taking the view that the same cannot be extended to the parts of Electric motors which are cleared out of appellant's factory, for use as spare parts in various Railway Zones. The Show Cause Notice dated 04/02/1991 has covered the period of five years and has invoked the suppression clause of Sec 11A for demanding duty for the longer period. The subsequent Show Cause Notice dated 03/08/1992 has also invoked the extended period of limitation under Section 11A. The appellant being a unit of Ministry of Railways, by no stretch of imagination, can be considered to have suppressed facts with a view to evade payment of duty. Hence, the demand is to be reiterated within normal time limit 8. We note that once a Show Ca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nces of the present case. As the decision of this Tribunal in the appellant's own case vide Final order No. FO/75182/2019 dated 10.01.2019, is squarely applicable to this case, we hold that the appellant is liable to pay central excise duty on the Traction Motors manufactured and cleared to various zones of the Indian Railways. 9. Regarding the demand of duty confirmed in the impugned order by invoking the extended period of limitation, we find that the appellant has not suppressed any information from the Department. It is seen that the entire demand has been raised and confirmed on the basis of the information furnished by the appellant in their ER-1 and ER-6 Returns. This is evident from paragraph 5.11 of the impugned order, which rea....