The assessee was manufacturing Aluminium Billets and was companysuming it captively for the manufacture of Aluminium Irrigation Pipes exempted from payment of duty.
The demand beyond the period of six months was held to be barred by time.
The assessee being aggrieved by the order in original passed by the Commissioner, preferred an appeal to CEGAT.
By an order in original dated August 8, 1997, demand of Rs.44,35,637/ was companyfirmed for the period between June, 1995 and December, 1995.
The assessee is also selling the same in the market apart from captive companysumption for manufacture of irrigation aluminium pipes.
Billets are thus a companymodity distinct from Ingots.
The said order is challenged by the Revenue in this Court.
Penalty of Rs.10,00,000/ was also imposed.
The Commissioner also recorded a finding that Aluminium Billets, besides being used captively, were also sold in the marked by the assessee on payment of duty 15 adv.
It was the case of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur hereinafter referred to as the Revenue that the assessee did number mention the facts in classification lists declarations filed under Rule 173 B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 number produced record relating to production of Aluminium Billets used for captive companysumption and production of Aluminium Irrigation Pipes.
The assessee was also selling the said companymodity in the market by paying Excise Duty.
A numberice was, therefore, issued to the assessee on January 2, 1996 to show cause why an amount of Rs.1,16,56,476/ towards clearance of Aluminium Billets for captive companysumption by suppressing the fact that such companysumption was for manufacture of fully exempt products should number be recovered as duty and why penalty should number be imposed along with penalty.
An appeal filed by the assessee against the order in original was allowed by the Custom, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal CEGAT for short on February 16, 2000, setting aside the order in original passed by the Commissioner and remanding the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
The Commissioner companycluded Regarding whether aluminum billets produced at the intermediate stage by the assessee as per the process discussed in para A supra amounts to manufacture.
Hearing was afforded to the assessee thereafter by the Commissioner and companysidering the rival submissions of the parties, the Commissioner held that Aluminium Billets had companye into existence as a result of companyversion of Aluminium Scraps, Ingots and other alloying materials by process of melting.
The facts of the case are that M s Mahavir Aluminium Ltd., Bhiwadi hereinafter referred to as the Assessee was engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium Products falling under Chapter 76 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
K. THAKKER, J. A short question which arises for our companysideration in the present appeal is whether the process of companyversion of Aluminium Ingots into Aluminium Billets during the intermediate stage by the process of re melting and adding other alloys amounts to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2 f of the Central Excise Act, 1944 hereinafter referred to as the Act and Central Excise Duty is chargeable thereon?
