9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 – in favor of assessee - CSTA No. 28 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 9-6-2011 - V.G. Sabhahit and Ravi Malimath, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri K.M. Mohan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Smt. Rukmini Menon, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : Ravi Malimath, J.] This appeal is filed by the revenue being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal [2007 (216) E.L.T. 59 (Tribunal)] holding that the raw materials/capital goods which are used in the premises for production would not be hit by the Explanation to Rule 6 of Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001. 2. The assessee is a 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts of the case? 2. When the goods are treated as work-in-progress, would they be covered by the expression during handing and consequently hit by Explanation to Rule 6? 3. Whether Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is attracted to the finished goods only or it includes the inputs and the goods-work-in-progress? The learned counsel appearing for the revenue contends that the findings recorded by the Tribunal is erroneous in as much as the fact that the subject matter of the goods have been destroyed is hit by the Explanation to Rule 6 of the Rules. It is contended that when the goods are lost or destroyed in natural causes from the place of procurement to manufacturing premises during handling and storage of the manufacture s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... handling used in the Explanation means usage of goods and extends up-to the point when further process on the goods stop. Therefore, according to him, the goods would be covered by the expression during handling and they would be hit by the Explanation. The view of the Commissioner (Appeals) that even the work-in-progress material would be covered by the Explanation to Rule 6 is incorrect. 7. The Tribunal has rightly passed the order which does not call for interference. The Explanation to Rule 6 is clearly not attracted in the present case. There is no error committed by the Tribunal, that warrants any interference, it is well reasoned order. 8. Hence we are of the considered view that there is no error committed by the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
