2019 (3) TMI 2034 - AT - Central Excise

Exemption benefit on captive consumption - benefit on N/N. 67/95 denied - non-compliance with the reqiuirement of notification - control panels are cleared to Mega Power Projects which are exempt under Notification 6/2002 and 6/2006 - HELD THAT - The issue stands decided in M/S. AREVA T AND D INDIA LTD. VERSUS CCE ST, LTU, CHENNAI 2018 (2) TMI 209 - CESTAT CHENNAI where it was held that the eligibility of the appellant-assessee for exemption under Notification No. 67/1995 cannot be disputed. They have followed the provisions and complied with the provisions of Rule 6 and all the connected requirements of the Notification No. 67/1995. Thus, the demand cannot sustain - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Benefit of Notification 67/95-CE compliance for exemption under Notification 67/1995.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI involved the issue of whether the appellants, engaged in manufacturing relays and control panels, were eligible for the benefit of Notification 67/95-CE. The appellants cleared relays for captive consumption for the manufacture of control panels, which were further cleared for home consumption under various notifications without payment of duty. The department contended that the appellants did not comply with the conditions of Notification 67/95-CE. However, the Tribunal found that the appellants had followed the provisions and complied with Rule 6 and all connected requirements of the notification. The Tribunal referenced a similar case and concluded that the eligibility of the appellants for exemption under Notification 67/1995 could not be disputed. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, stating that the demand was not legally sustainable, and allowed the appeals with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI held that the appellants were eligible for the benefit of Notification 67/95-CE and had complied with the necessary provisions for exemption under Notification 67/1995. The Tribunal found that the impugned orders were not legally sustainable and set them aside, allowing the appeals with consequential relief, if any. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the compliance by the appellants with the relevant rules and notifications, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellants and dismissing the appeal by the Revenue.