9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be applicable only when manufacturer of the goods manufacture goods of two types, one is excisable and another is exempted. However, in case where goods manufactured are dutiable at the time of manufacture, Rule 6(3) will not be applicable. Similar issue decided in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THIRUNELVELI Versus DCW LTD. [2008 (10) TMI 380 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that For the provisions of Rule 57CC(1) to apply, there should be one final product which is dutiable and another final product which is exempted from payment of duty or chargeable to “Nil” rate of duty. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich is dutiable accordingly at the time of manufacture all the goods were dutiable. Notification No.10/97-CE and Notification No.3/2004-CE are end user based exemption, accordingly since goods are supplied to particular category of buyer, in the present case Indian Navy, the goods are exempted otherwise goods i.e. P.D. Pump is dutiable per se. In this fact Rule 57CC/ 57AD and Rule 6(3)(a) have no applicability, accordingly, demand is not sustainable. He submits that on the issue of same notification, this Tribunal has decided the issue in hand, in the following decisions. (a) (Greaves Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Chennai[2007(211) ELT 563(Tri. Chennai)] (b) Commissioner of Central Excise, Mudurai Vs. DCW Ltd[2009(234) ELT 163(Tri. Chenn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liance on the following decisions: (a) Jubilant Life Science Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune[2016(343) ELT 1165(Tri. Mumbai)] (b) R.R. Paints Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Mumbai-III[2014(33) STR 156 (Bom)] (c) Commissioner of C. Ex. Thane-I Vs. Nicholas Piramal(India) Ltd[2009(244) ELT 321(Bom)] (d) Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Cus., & C. Ex. Bhopal[2003(160) ELT 928(Tri. Del.)] (e) M/s. Mahindra Sona Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik[2016-TIOL-1174-CESTAT-MUM] 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. 5. I find that the appellant have manufactured P.D. Pump, which is per se not exempted goods. However, they have cleared part of their m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oda Flakes manufactured and removed from the factory during the period of dispute was one final product and the remaining quantity of the same final product was "another" final product. The requirements of Rule 57CC(1) were not met in this case, as rightly held by the lower appellate authority. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Above decision of the Tribunal was upheld by dismissing appeal of the Revenue by the Hon'ble Madras High Court reported as Commissioner of Central Excise, Thirunelveli Vs. DCW Ltd [2011(274) ELT 183(Mad.)] wherein Hon'ble Madras High Court given following findings: 2. The above said two manufactured goods are excisable goods during the period in dispute and a major part of the manufactur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he goods in question, non-dutiable or exempt. I am fortified in my view by the decisions of the Tribunal in Greaves Ltd Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai [2007 (211) E.L.T. 563 (Tri.-Chennai)] and Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai v. DCW Ltd. [2009 (234) E.L.T. 163 (Tri.-Chennai)]. The above decisions are in the context of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 Rule 6 which is the relevant rule in the present case, is pari materia with Rule 57CC in the sense that both require manufacture of two categories of products, namely, one excisable and the other exempted. 3. Following the ratio of the above decisions, I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. Identical issue was also considered in the case of the Grieves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumstances or on the fulfilment of certain conditions under the provisions of an exemption Notification can hardly be treated as "any other final product" as clearance under an exemption Notification cannot render the product different from the same product cleared on payment of duty. This case of the appellants is in keeping with the provisions of Rule 57CC. This Rule would apply to a manufacturer who was engaged in the manufacture of a final product which was chargeable to duty and any other final product which was exempt from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereof or was chargeable to 'nil' rate of duty. In the present case, the appellants were clearing EOT cranes on payment of duty to buyers other than SHAR at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
