9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 808X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. M/s. Haldyn Glass Limited, respondent to this appeal by the Department, is engaged in the manufacture of glass and glassware in its factory. The respondent manufactures in its factory such moulds of iron required for casting certain glassware. When some of the moulds that were in use became unserviceable because of they wore ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to the respondent, was that the worn out moulds had become ferrous waste or scrap and duty was not payable on them, being eligible for exemption under Notification 220/86. Therefore, the condition that the goods should have been manufactured out of the goods on which excise duty or additional duty of customs leviable under the tariff has not been satisfied. The Assistant Collector confirmed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dition. The Counsel for the respondent cites the decision of the Tribunal in its own case [CCE v. Haldyn Glass Ltd. - 1999 (114) E.L.T. 835]. In that decision, the Tribunal has relied upon the Supreme Court decision in CCE, Patna v. Usha Martin Industries - 1997 (94) E.L.T. 460. He also cites the decision of the Tribunal in Kallakurichi Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Moongilthuraipattu v. CCE [198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
