2017 (1) TMI 597

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sh Nair The fact of the present case is that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of paints, varnishes, thinners etc. falling under Chapter 32 and 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period from 1.4.2003 to 18.9.2003 the appellant had availed benefit of exemption Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003 wherein the exemption is provided for the first clearances upto an a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... before us. 2. Ms. Kranti Rathi, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that as regard the manufactured goods, the aggregate value was not exceeded Rupees three hundred lakhs in the preceding financial year. Admittedly the value of the sale of raw material as such was included in the aggregate value of the clearance in the preceding financial year. She submits that for the purpose of Rupees three .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of calculating the aggregate value of Rupees three hundred lakhs for the purpose of the eligibility of the notification, only goods manufactured by the appellant should be taken into account and not the trading of bought out item. We are therefore of the view that the exemption Notification No.8/2003 was wrongly denied by adding the value of the traded goods. As per our above discussion, the impu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X