9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 847X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Anupa Banerjee, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. Heard both sides. The Respondents have filed three Miscellaneous Applications for changing the name of the Respondents in these three Appeals and three Cross Objections from M/s. Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. to M/s. Indian Metal Ferro Alloys Ltd. Since, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondents, the Tribunal had already allowed the duty exemption to the Respondents in respect of captive power plant as a whole vide Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. v. CCE,BBSR-I - 2001 (138) E.L.T. 609 holding that no restrictive clause is there in the Notification that the imported goods will be solely or exclusively used for the purpose of manufacture of goods for export. The Department s Appeal a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of spares on the sole ground that surplus power produced by the plant has been sold outside. The Board s Circular cited by the Department cannot obviously over-ride the decision of the Tribunal upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court. Appeal No. CDM-23/05 59/05 4. In these two Appeals, the issue relates to eligibility for exemption to spares of power plant. The lower appellate Authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a further consideration. For the detailed reasons recorded in our earlier order in the Respondents own case reported in 2008 (228) E.L.T. 55, we hold that the spares for the power plant are also eligible for exemption as capital goods under the Notification No. 13/81-CUS for the impugned period. Accordingly, there is no requirement to interfere with the impugned order passed by the lower appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
