1. Aggrieved by Order in Original No 26/CEX 2004 dated 26.7.2004 passed by the Commissioner Central Excise & Customs, Nashik, these appeals are filed along with stay application to dispense with pre-deposit balance duty amount & penalty.
2. The issue involved is about excisibility of the goods manufactured on job work basis.
3. M/s Bhikusa Papers Pvt. Ltd, Nasik, is engaged in the manufacture of wrapping and packaging paper falling under chapter heading 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are also manufacturing such paper on job work basis as per notification No 83/94 dated 11.4.94 as amended.
4. Show Cause Notice dated 27.03.2003 was issued as to why Central Excise duty amounting Rs. 5057446/- should not be demanded and recovered under erstwhile Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 r/w Proviso to Section II A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in respect of goods cleared during the period 1997-98 to 2000-2001 upto 16.2.2001 with one payment of duty by willful suppression and misrepresentation of the facts and wrongly claiming exemption under notification No 83/94 dated 11.04.94.
5. The impugned order confirmed the demand for Rs. 40,55,519 under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 6. It is contended that Assistant Collector, Central Excise Customs, Nasik, In his Order-in-Original dated 11.6.98 extended the benefit of notification 83/94 dated 11.4.94, which became final, as such confirmation of demand for the period 1997-98 (upto Feb 2001) by invoking Proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is not legally tenable being time barred.
7. Appellants contested quantification of demand and the same is not considered. Cross examination of witnesses not permitted. Records verified were not considered.
8. The Notification No 83/94 exempts dutiable goods product got manufactured on job work basis and further used with manufacture of exempted final product by SSI units whose final product is exempt.
"Approved C1 continues till correctness is questioned, by issue of show Cause Notice" Held "Demand raised beyond six months unsustainable with elegance of allegation of fraud or collusion or will-full mis-statement." 10. The impugned order do not discuss on the contention raised by the appellants. Therefore, in our considered view, the matter under appeal is to be reconsidered in the light of aforesaid decisions and as such remanded for fresh disposal.