9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 683 - AT - Central ExciseBenefit of N/N. 67/95 - Captive Consumption - Whether the assessee is eligible for exemption under N/N. 67/95 for captive consumption of inputs when the final products are cleared availing exemption of N/N. 6/2006? - Held that - the issue is covered by the decision in the case of 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 exclusion made under sub-clause (vii) of sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 read with proviso to N/N. 67/95 makes it clear that the exemption for captive consumption of intermediate products has been correctly claimed by the appellant - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues: Eligibility for exemption under Notification No.67/95 for captive consumption of inputs when final products are cleared availing exemption of Notification No.6/2006.
Analysis: 1. The appeals involved a common issue where the assessee, a manufacturer of boilers, merged two units engaged in manufacturing boilers and Seamless Steel Tubes (SS Tubes). Post-merger, the assessee did not pay duty on SS Tubes and SFW Tubes for captive consumption, relying on exemption Notification No.67/95 dated 16.3.95 and Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006. The department alleged in a show cause notice that the assessee was not eligible for the exemption under Notification No.67/95 due to clearing final products without duty payment. 2. The assessee argued that their case was similar to a precedent involving M/s. Areva T & D India Ltd., where the issue was decided in favor of the assessee. The department, represented by the ld. AR, contended that the merger of units made the exemption under Notification No.67/95 unavailable to the assessee, distinguishing the present case from the Areva T & D India Ltd. case. 3. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, applied the decision in the Areva T & D India Ltd. case, finding the issue in the present case identical. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the demand raised by the department was unsustainable. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders in Appeal Nos. E/428/2010 and E/544/2010, allowing the appeals filed by the assessee with any consequential relief. The appeal filed by the department, E/170/2010, was deemed without merit and dismissed accordingly.
|
