9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 204 - AT - Central ExciseExemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE - Manufacture of clinker - Captive consumption - Held that - Both the sides agreed that the issue involved in this case stands decided against the appellant by the Tribunal judgment in the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. vs. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2006 (3) TMI 615 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI , wherein the Tribunal has held that when the cement unit is availing of area based exemption Notification No. 50/03-CE and clinker is captively used for manufacture of cement, the same would not be eligible for exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE. The clinker is not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 50/03-CE as it is in the negative list of the exemption. In view of this, there is no infirmity in the impugned order - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
1. Eligibility of clinker manufactured and captively used for cement production for exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE. Analysis: The appellant, a manufacturer of clinker and cement chargeable to Central Excise duty, sought exemption under Notification No. 50/03-CE for their cement unit in Himachal Pradesh. The dispute centered on whether the clinker used for cement production qualified for exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE. The Commissioner (Appeals) had ruled against the appellant, leading to the current appeal. Upon hearing both parties, it was noted that the issue had been previously settled in the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. vs. CCE, Chandigarh (2006) where the Tribunal held that if a cement unit benefits from area-based exemption under Notification No. 50/03-CE and uses captively manufactured clinker for cement production, such clinker would not be eligible for exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE. The Tribunal emphasized that clinker was excluded from the scope of exemption under Notification No. 50/03-CE. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed. In conclusion, the judgment clarified that clinker manufactured by the appellant and used for cement production was not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE due to the specific provisions of the exemption notifications and the precedent set by the Tribunal in a similar case.
|
