ORDER
V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)
1. This issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Gujarat Aluminium Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. is whether the excise duty is payable on aluminium ingots and waste & scrap manufactured and cleared by them to M/s. Gujarat Casting Corporation (G.C.C.).
2. Shri K.K. Anand, Learned Advocate, submitted that both Appellants and M/s. G.C.C.’s factory were shown in the ground plan filed by the Appellants, that M/s. G.C.C. had taken on hire by way of lease the machinery from them and were manufacturing aluminium castings from aluminium ingots and scraps supplied by the Appellants; that the entire premises shown in the ground plan constituted indivisible and inseparable factory premises and not two different factory premises; that the casting produced by M/s. G.C.C. in the Casting Section were shown by the Appellants as manufacturing work done by them only and excise duty liability was discharged by them; that as such they were treated as manufacturer of castings; that the classification lists and price lists filed by them in respect of Casting Section were approved by the Department. The learned Advocate further, submitted that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court, in the caseof C.C.E., Baroda v. Cotspun Ltd. -1999 (113) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.) no demand of excise duty can be made for the period prior to the issue of show cause notice.
3. Countering the arguments, Shri M.P. Singh, learned D.R., submitted that the Appellants did not manufacture the goods in Casting Section as these admittedly were manufactured by M/s. Gujarat Casting Corporation; that mere fact that the duty was discharged by the Appellants on the goods manufactured they do not become the manufacturer of those goods; M/s. G.C.C. is a separate entity, which according to the Appellants themselves, had hired by lease the machinery from them; that the Appellants were paying job charges to M/s. G.C.C.; that in the impugned Order duty has been confirmed on the goods manufactured and removed by the Appellants. He, further, submitted that as the Appellants had not filed the classification list in respect of the impugned goods, there was no approved classification list and as such the ratio of the Cotspnn decision, supra, is not applicable to the facts in the present matter; that no presumption can be made that the classification list has been approved under Nil rate of duty as the impugned products were not even mentioned in the classification list.
4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We find from the impugned Order that the Collector (Appeals) has given a clear findings that “On their own admission, the appellants and M/s. G.C.C. were two separate legal [entities] M/s. G.C.C. were charging casting charges to the appellants for the job work done by them”. This has not been controverted by the Appellants before us. In fact the Appellants have themselves mentioned in the Memorandum of Appeals that M/s. G.C.C.’s name was mentioned in the ground plan clearly indicating them as an independent entity. Merely because entire ground plan was approved by the Department will not take away the fact that M/s. G.C.C. were independent manufacturer. In view of these facts, the Appellants were required to clear the impugned goods from their factory premises only on payment of excise duty. We observe that both the lower authorities have confirmed the demand of duty only for the normal period and not for the extended period. The ratio in the case of CCE, Baroda v. Cotspun Ltd. to the effect that “The levy of excise duty on the basis of an approved classification list is not a short levy” is not applicable to the facts of me present matter as the Appellants had not filed the classification list in respect of the impugned goods. Accordingly the appeal filed by the Appellants is rejected.