9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification No. 67/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995 exempts capital goods as defined in Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 manufactured in a factory and used within the factory of production. The notification does not speak of any ownership. It is an unconditional exemption which provides exemption to capital goods manufactured in a factory and used within the factory - Once goods are manufactured and used in the same factory, the notification squarely applies - Following the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of BPL Electronics Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore reported in [1994 (3) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI], Elcon Clipsal India Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad reported in [2002 (9) TMI 140 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI] - Decided against Revenue. - E/1733/2009 and Cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dies and fixtures have been sold to the customers, it has to be held that there was a deemed removal of tools, dies and fixtures to the customer and the same were received back for use in the manufacture of components for the customer. In view of the deemed removal, when the commercial invoice was raised duty should have been paid. Since the respondent did not pay duty and raised commercial invoice, the impugned order was wrong in taking a view that no duty, interest were payable and penalty was not imposable. He also submitted that under these circumstances the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 67/95 would not be available to the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon several decisions of the Tribunal and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 (71) E.L.T. 801 (Tribunal), Elcon Clipsal India Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad reported in 2002 (146) E.L.T. 360 (Tri. - Delhi) are applicable to the facts of this case. In both the cases, the Tribunal took the view that notification nowhere provides that the use of capital goods should be on account of the manufacturer. It was also observed by the Tribunal in the case of BPL Electronics Ltd. that mere fact of raising any invoice in favour of a company does not create a liability for charging duty. It was also held that levy of excess duty is in relation to manufacture and has nothing to do with sale. Since both the decisions of Tribunal are applicable to the facts of this case and the notification also has no restriction, I find that the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
