(i) Oxide manufacturing

(ii) Pas Mixing

(iii) Pasting and (iv) Curing/Hydro setting.

3. He has pleaded that the Lead Oxide as it is could be manufactured by two methods namely Ball Mill process and Barton pot process. He has pleaded that the appellants manufactured in their factory Lead Oxide by Barton pot process. The process comprised of oxidising the molten lead under controlled conditions and this resulted in forming oxide particles which had lead oxide on the surface and the core of lead itself collected and were processed for obtaining the Lead Oxide. The Lead Oxide so produced was stored in the SILOS. He has pleaded that the type of Lead Oxide which they produced was of a variety which was usable only by them. He, however, has pleaded that since the appellants did not function to their full capacity part of the Lead Oxides was sold to Auto Battery manufacturers and the Lead Oxide which they produced was to render it usable according to the buyers specifications for the manufacture of Lead batteries. He has pleaded compared to the shelf life of lead oxide meant for automotive applications which is about 3 months the shelf life of the Lead oxide which they manufactured and stored in SILOS is only 3 weeks. He has pleaded that the appellants had got a price list also approved in regard to Lead Oxide but that price list was got approved for the Lead Oxide to be sold to the Automotive battery manufacturers. He has pleaded that this price list was approved along with classification list. He has pleaded necessary enquiries would have been done by the departmental authorities in 1994 and therefore they could be taken to have acquired the knowledge about the manufacture of the Lead Oxide by the appellants. He has pleaded that the Lead oxide captively consumed and in respect of which duty has been demanded was not the goods in question as the appellants alone produce the same and there is no averment from the Revenue that this Lead Oxide could be sold in the market to anybody. He has pleaded that the Trade Notice was also issued whereby the indication was that the appellants product would be classifiable under the tariff heading 38 instead of 28. He has pleaded in this back ground notwithstanding the variety of the Lead Oxide manufactured by them no duty could be demanded from the appellants. He has pleaded that in any case the demand was hit by bar of limitation as the same has been raised for the period 1.5.92 to 28.2.93 and the show cause notice was issued on 3.10.94. He has pleaded that the departmental authorities came to know about the captive consumption of the appellants' product through a visit by the Audit authorities on 18.5.93 and the details were asked from the appellants regarding the manufacture and clearance of Lead Oxide. He has pleaded after the details were furnished the SCN was issued beyond period of 6 months and therefore the same will be hit by bar of limitation.

4. He has further pleaded that while there may not be any records as to the manufacture but when the officers of the department had been visiting the appellants' factory they would have known about the manufacture of the lead oxide and its captive consumption and therefore enough knowledge can be attributed to the department all along and therefore the demand could not have been