9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (6) TMI 473 - AT - Central ExciseStay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Captive consumption - Interpretation of Notification - Precedent - Judicial discipline
Issues:
Admissibility of benefit of Notification No. 67/95-C.E. in respect of moulds manufactured and used captively in the manufacture of final product. Analysis: The dispute in the present appeal revolves around the admissibility of the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-C.E. concerning moulds manufactured by the appellant in their factory and used captively in the production of the final product. The Commissioner denied the exemption, citing that the appellant issued invoices for the moulds to the customer for whom the final product was being manufactured, implying a sale element that would disqualify the benefit. However, the appellant argued that the notification does not specify ownership of the goods and should apply as long as the goods are used captively in producing other excisable goods cleared upon duty payment. The appellant relied on a previous Tribunal decision in the case of M/s. BPL Electronics v. C.C.E., Bangalore, which the Commissioner distinguished by pointing out changes in relevant notifications over time. The Commissioner's distinction was deemed flawed as the content of the notifications remained identical despite the changes in numbering. The Tribunal noted that a decision in the case of Elcon Clipsal India Ltd. involving the same notification and product as moulds was not followed by the adjudicating authority, highlighting a lack of intelligible differentia in the Commissioner's reasoning. Judicial discipline necessitates that the adjudicating authority follows Tribunal decisions on identical issues. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the appellant had a strong prima facie case on merits and granted a stay petition, scheduling the appeal for final disposal on a specified date. The judgment emphasizes the importance of consistency in applying legal precedents and the need for adherence to established judicial decisions in similar cases.
|
