9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ] wherein this Tribunal held that a conjoint reading of sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 of the CCR 2004 and clause (vi) under the proviso to N/N.67/95-CE ibid would show that the assessee’s claim for exemption from payment of duty on copper wire under the Notification was not hit by the opening portion of the proviso to the Notification, held that assessee was not liable to pay CE duty on copper wire manufactured and captively used in the manufacture of insulated (power) cables in the factory during the material period. - appeal dismissed- decided against Revenue. - Excise Appeal No.52475 of 2015 - A/57144/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 4-10-2017 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri H C Saini, AR for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submissions of both the sides, the short issue emerges before us is whether the appellants are liable to pay the duty on intermediate product i.e. armoured cable, which has been used for manufacture of power cables which is ultimately cleared on payment of duty in the open market and to Mega Power Projects without payment of duty. 8. An identical issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of Thermo Cables Ltd. (supra) wherein this Tribunal observed as under: 4. After considering the submissions, we have found great force in the submissions made by the learned counsel. It is not in dispute that the final products were cleared without payment of duty under Notification No.6/2006-C.E. which, at Sl. No.91 thereof, prescribe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iable final products and inputs meant for use in the manufacture of exempted goods, nor did the assessee have alternative liability under sub-rule (3) to pay an amount equal to 10% of the value of the exempted goods. This is because their final products were cleared against international competitive bidding in terms of Notification No.6/2006-C.E. ibid. 5. Against the above backdrop, one has to examine the scope of Notification No.67/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995 (as amended) in so far as the present case is concerned. The opening paragraph of this Notification exempts from payment of CE duty any inputs manufactured in a factory and used within the same factory in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. Input must be one of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it appears that the bar created therein is not applicable to the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted final products cleared by a manufacturer of such exempted final products as well as dutiable final products. In other words, where the manufacturer manufactures both dutiable and exempted final products and uses the inputs in question in the manufacture of the exempted final products, he is entitled to the benefit of exemption from payment of duty on such inputs in terms of the opening paragraph of the Notification. This right is not hit by the opening portion of the proviso to the Notification as the manufacturer is squarely covered by the exception carved out of the proviso vide clause (vi) under the proviso. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
