2023 (9) TMI 863 - AT - Central Excise

Exemption benefit on captive consumption under N/N. 67/95-CE dt. 16.03.1995 - control panels were cleared for home consumption on payment of duty and also were cleared without payment of duty by availing exemption under Notification No.6/2006-CE dt. 01.03.2006 - HELD THAT - The issue stands decided in appellant own case M/S. ALSTOM T D (INDIA) LTD. SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. APPELLANT VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE CHENNAI 2019 (3) TMI 2034 - CESTAT CHENNAI where it was 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. The demand cannot sustain and requires to be set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue involved in this case is whether the appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Relays and Control Panels, is eligible for exemption under Notification No.67/95-CE for goods captively consumed and cleared for home consumption without payment of duty.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue 1: Interpretation of "discharge the obligation" under Rule 6 of CCR 2004 in Notification No.67/95-CE:
The appellant contended that the exemption under Notification No.67/95-CE applies even when the final product is exempt from excise duty, subject to the manufacturer discharging the obligation under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The key question was the meaning of "discharge the obligation" under Rule 6 of CCR 2004. The appellant cited precedents to support their argument that the transaction in question, cleared under Notification No.6/2006 without payment of excise duty, should be subject to Rule 6 of CCR 2004. The Tribunal, relying on a previous decision, held that the appellant complied with the provisions of Rule 6 and was eligible for the exemption under Notification No.67/95-CE.

Issue 2: Eligibility for exemption under Notification No.67/95-CE:
The Tribunal found that the appellant, in a similar case, had complied with the provisions of Rule 6 and all requirements of Notification No.67/95. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities' findings were not legally sustainable and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal by the appellant-assessee and dismissing the appeal by the Revenue. Following this precedent, the Tribunal held that the demand could not sustain and set it aside, allowing the appeals with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand and allowing the appeals with consequential relief.