9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 1071 - AT - Central ExciseLevy of Excise duty - moulds and fixtures manufactured and captively consumed for manufacture of other final products when such moulds and fixtures are sold by issuing commercial invoices but not removed from the factory - eligibility for exemption N/N. 67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 - HELD THAT - The issue is no longer res-integran the light of the decision of this Tribunal in the appellant s own case COMMR. OF C. EX., VADODARA VERSUS AUTOMOTIVE STAMPING ASSEMBLIES LTD. 2011 (9) TMI 878 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD where it was held that ' It is an unconditional exemption which provides exemption to capital goods manufactured in a factory and used within the factory. It is not the case of the Revenue that goods have been removed from the factory at all. Once goods are manufactured and used in the same factory, the notification squarely applies.' Thus, it can be seen that the facts in the above cited decision and the facts of the present case in the appellant s own case are absolutely identical. The present impugned order is not sustainable - Appeal allowed.
Issues:
Whether central excise duty can be demanded on moulds and fixtures manufactured and captively consumed for manufacture of other final products when such moulds and fixtures are sold but not removed from the factory, and whether the appellant is eligible for exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995. Analysis: The appellant contended that the issue is settled based on various judgments, including CCE, Vadodara v/s. Automotive Stamping Assemblies Ltd. The Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, citing the decision in the appellant's own case of CCE, Vadodara v/s. Automotive Stamping Assemblies Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the issue pertains to tools and dies sold to customers but used in the appellant's factory for manufacturing components, where no duty was paid. The Tribunal held that duty should have been paid on such tools and dies. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) ruled that no duty was payable, and Cenvat credit was admissible. The Tribunal emphasized that the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 67/95 is available if goods are consumed in the same factory where they are produced, even if not removed from the factory. The Tribunal highlighted that the Notification No. 67/95 exempts capital goods manufactured in a factory and used within the same factory, without specifying ownership. It was noted that the notification applies if goods are manufactured and used in the same factory, irrespective of ownership. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions, such as BPL Electronics Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore and Elcon Clipsal India Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad, where it was held that the use of capital goods need not be on account of the manufacturer for the exemption to apply. The Tribunal emphasized that raising an invoice does not create a duty liability, and excess duty relates to manufacture, not sale. As the facts of the present case were similar to the cited decision, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that central excise duty cannot be demanded on moulds and fixtures manufactured and consumed within the factory for the manufacture of final products, and the appellant is eligible for exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
|
