2017 (12) TMI 546

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Ltd. and Sh. Manjeet Singh Director Vs. CCE, Delhi-II [2016 (4) TMI 279 –CESTAT, New Delhi], where it was held that only criteria for grant of exemption is the capital goods manufactured in a factory are used within the factory of production - the condition of notification fulfilled - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Ex. Appeal No.50106 of 2017 - A/57451/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 27- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt, as per the requirement of the buyer, manufacture certain tools which remain with the appellant even after recovering the cost of the tooling. Thus, the tooling so removed never come out from the factory of the appellant. The appellant has claimed the benefit of Notification No. 65/1995 dated 16.03.95 regarding non payment of the duty. But the department has demanded the duty on the tooling. Be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... admitted fact that the moulds were not cleared out of the appellants unit. The Tribunal in Elcon Clipsal India Ltd. - 2002 (146) ELT 360 (Tri. Del) and in BPL Electronics Ltd. -1994 (71) ELT 801 (Tri.) held that the exemption for captive consumption cannot be denied if the capital goods are used within the factory or production. The ownership of the goods is not relevant. The only criteria for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X