9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (AR) Per: Justice Dr. Satish Chandra The present appeal is filed against order-in-appeal No. 411/2007 dated 30/10/2007. The period of dispute is 1997-98. 2. The brief facts of the case are that during the period under consideration the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of Lay Flat Tubings (LFT) which is being captively used in the manufacture of plastic bags. At the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Collector of Central Excise v. Universal Electrical Industries [2003 (153) ELT 266 (SC)] wherein it is held that "when the value of the finished goods, which are exempted under different notifications, is to be excluded, while arriving at the aggregate value of clearance for the purpose of volume of the benefit of notification No. 175/86, having regard to the wording of Explanation II thereof. " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion that remains to be resolved is, for the purposes of claiming exemption under the notification, how should the aggregate value be arrived at? It is in that context that a reference to Explanation II would be relevant. It says that for the purposes of computing the aggregate value of clearances under the notification, the clearances of excisable goods which are chargeable to "nil" rate of dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this notification. There appears to be a rationale behind this Explanation; firstly, when the value of the finished goods, which are exempted under different notifications, is to be excluded, having regard to the wording of Explanation II, on the same analogy, the value of inputs which are being used for manufacture of finished goods are also excluded as both are specified goods, subject, of cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
