9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 1017X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber (T)]. The duty demand in the present case is in respect of steam boiler installed in the premises of M/s. Shree Ambica Sugars Ltd., Tamil Nadu. The boiler was manufactured and installed by M/s. Isgec Covema Ltd. Ld. Counsel representing the appellants submits that even if the steam boiler is held to be excisable, no duty would be payable in view of the exemption under Notification No. 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n their factory of production and hence they are not entitled to exemption under the said Notification. 2. It is the contention of the appellant s Counsel that the above finding of the adjudicating authority is contrary to the well settled position that there is no requirement under Notification No. 67/95 that the manufacturer of the capital goods should be using the capital goods in their fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able, they would be exempt under Notification No. 67/95 and no duty demand could be raised in respect of the steam boiler in question. 5. As the goods, steam boiler in question is exempt under Notification No. 67/95, we hold that the duty demand raised in the adjudication order is not tenable and the same is required to be set aside. No penalty can survive in the absence of duty liability. The p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
