9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under : 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of TV Glass Shells of 14" and 17" classifiable under sub-heading 7008.20 of the CETA and during the manufacture of that product, intermediate goods, namely, glass panels, glass funnels and glass necks were also produced by them during the period 1-3-1999 to 28-9-1999 from the various raw materials including neck tubes etc. These intermediate goods were used captively by them in the manufacture of their final product i.e. TV glass shells. They availed benefit of Notification No. 67/95-C.E. dated 16-3-1995 in respect of these goods. On 9-9-1999 the preventive party of Central Excise paid surprise visit to their factory premises and dur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. The appellants have come up in appeal against the above said impugned order of the Commissioner before the Tribunal. 5. The facts are not much in dispute. Admittedly the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of TV glass shells of 14" and 17" classifiable under sub-heading No. 7008.20 of the CETA. During the manufacture of their final product, they produced intermediate goods, namely, glass panels, glass funnels and glass necks from various raw materials and captively consumed for the manufacture of the TV glass shells. It also remains undisputed that the TV glass shells were cleared by them to M/s. Samtel India Ltd. against CT-2 certificate at nil rate of duty under Notification No. 47/94-CER (NT) dated 22-9-1994 issued by the Gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms of the proviso appended to Notification No. 67/95-C.E. or not. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that such clearances of the final product made against CT-2 certificate could not be treated as exempt from the whole of the duty or chargeable to nil rate of duty under the law as those were made in terms of Notification No. 47/94 which was issued under Rule 13 of the Rules, to an exporter who in turn exported the same. Therefore the proviso appended to Notification No. 67/95 referred to above could not be invoked against the appellants. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on - (1) CCE, Vadodara v. Steelco Gujarat Ltd. - 2000 (121) E.L.T. 557 (Tribunal) (2) CCE, Ahmedabad-I v. Omkar Texti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, removal of which without payment of duty from the place of manufacture or storage for use in the manufacture of export goods may be permitted by the Commissioner of Central Excise and in exercise of power under this Rule the Government issued under Notification No. 47/94-C.E., dated 22-9-1994 allowing exemption to the inputs used in the manufacture of such goods. The Excise department accordingly issued CT-2 certificate allowing the removal of the goods from the factory premises of the appellants to M/s. Samtel India Ltd., exporter without payment of duty in terms of this notification. Therefore, on the clearances of the final product i.e TV glass shells made by the appellants to M/s. Samtel India Ltd. against CT-2 certificate, the benef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
