G. Sankaran, President

1. By the impugned order, the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Faridabad, demanded excise duty amounting to Rs. 4,15,387.35 from the appellant under Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (the 'Schedule', for short) on Plaster of Paris manufactured by them and captively used in the manufacture of plaster of paris moulds. The basis of the order was that -

(a) Plaster of Paris moulds are "goods". The contention that they are not marketable goods is not acceptable. The moulds are not crude as is evident from the fact that the sanitaryware manufactured with their help are precise in their shapes and sizes. The moulds can certainly be bought by anyone who requires them.

(b) The contention that sanitaryware is the final product for the input plaster of paris is untenable since the latter is used only in the manufacture of moulds which, in turn, are used captively for the manufacture of sanitaryware. The moulds are in the nature of equipment/apparatus/tools which are, themselves, final products falling under Heading No. 6807.00 of the Schedule. Plaster of paris is the input for moulds, not sanitaryware. Hence the benefit of Notification No. 217/86 is not admissible to plaster of paris so used since moulds are exempt from excise duty under Notification No. 221/86, as amended by Notification No. 89/89.

It is this order that is challenged in the present appeal.

2. We have heard Shri B. D. Ahmed, Advocate, for the appellant and Shri L. Narasimha Murthy, DR, for the respondent - Collector.

3. On 28-8-1989, the Assistant Collector issued a demand-cum-show cause notice for a sum of Rs. 1,95,675.75 for the period from March 1989 to July 1989. Cause was to be shown to the Assistant Collector. By a corrigendum dated 19-3-1990, issued by the Assistant Collector, cause was required to be shown to the Collector instead of the Assistant Collector. By another corrigendum dated 5-4-1990, the following words were added to para 4 of the notice :-

'and said moulds being in the nature of apparatus/appliances cannot be treated as inputs to be used in or in relation to the manufacture of sanitaryware.'

4. A second demand-cum-show cause notice dated 8-1-1990 was issued by the Superintendent for an amount of Rs. 1,99,931.25 for the period from August 1989 to December 1989. Again, cause was to be shown to the Assistant Collector. A corrigendum, as in the earlier show cause notice, was issued on 19-3-1990 requiring cause to be shown to the Collector instead of the Assistant Collector. A second corrigendum as in the earlier notice was also issued on 29-3-1990.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted, with reference to the dates of the corrigenda which only completed the notice, that the first notice for the period from March 1989 to July 1989 was barred by limitation. In the case of the second notice, a part of the demand was barred taking into account the dates of the corrigenda. The learned D.R., however, contended that the notices were in lime and the corrigenda did not vitiate the notices. He relied, in this connection, on the Tribunal's decision in Mahavir Products v. Collector of Central Excise -MANU/CE/0236/1989 : 1989 (41) ELT 491. Collector had jurisdiction to adjudicate matters which fell in that of his subordinate officers by virtue of Section 12A of the Act.

6. On the merits of the dispute, the learned Counsel submitted that plaster of paris moulds were recognised as an input for use in the manufacture of the final product, ceramic ware, as evidenced by Notification 221/86, dated 2-4-1986, as amended. Plaster of paris manufactured by the appellants was used in the production of plaster of paris moulds which, in turn, were used for manufacture of ceramic goods. According to the Department, the proviso to Notification 217/86, as amended, acted as a bar to the availment of exemption by the appellants. This proviso stated that nothing contained in the notification shall apply to inputs used in or in