9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture. Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Kejriwal Bee Care (I) Ltd. [2011 (1) TMI 422 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] has held that there is no definition for capital goods in Notification No.22/2003-CE and the definition of capital goods under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 are not applicable to exemption notification EOU. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/7/2009-DB - Final Order No. 21869/2018 - Dated:- 11-12-2018 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER And MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri G.H. Pradyumna, Advocate For the Appellant Smt. Kavita Podwal, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S. GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same was proposed to be appropriated. After following the due process, the original authority vide Order-in-original dt. 16/08/2008 confirmed the demand along with interest and also appropriated the duty and interest paid by the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who rejected the appeal. 3. Heard both sides and perused records. 4.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the evidence. He further submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the binding judicial precedent decided by this Tribunal in many cases. He further submitted that it is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Infosys Technologies [2003(159) ELT 863] iii. Natural Stone Exports Ltd. Vs. CC(Appeals) [2006(198) ELT 440 (Tri. Bang.)] iv. Applicomp India Ltd. Vs. CC, Bangalore [2007(213) ELT 317 (Tri. Bang.)] v. Ceeta Industries Ltd. Vs. CC [2006(198) ELT 209 (Tri. Bang.)] vi. Transparent Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2006(200) ELT 118 (Tri. Bang.)] 4.2. He further submitted that both the authorities have overlooked the principle underlying the various pronouncements of the CESTAT insofar as demand of duty on warehoused goods are concerned. He further submitted that the impugned goods had been procured under CT3 certificate issued by the Department after proper verification regarding eligibility for exemption, then no duty can be de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer after necessary verification and after full satisfaction regarding the use of the impugned items in the manufacture of export goods. It has not been disputed by both the authorities below that the impugned goods have not been diverted by the appellant and have been put to use in the EOU. We also find that subsequently, the Development Commissioner has accorded approval for procurement of prefabricated RPUF Insulated Panels which is identical in nature with only difference in description. Further we find that in view of the various decisions relied upon by the appellant cited supra, the duty can only be demanded at the time of debonding and demand prior to debonding would be premature. Further we find that the Division Bench of this Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3-C.E., the term has to be interpreted in the sense in which it is understood in common parlance and on this basis, the pre-fabricated structures, PUFF panels and RPF panels required by the respondent for cold room would have to be treated as items of capital goods. We find that same view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Pune-I v. Weikfield Agro Products (supra), wherein Tribunal held that FRP panels sandwiched with PUFF insulation, cold insulation materials, fibre woven reinforced plastic sheets etc. used for insulation purpose in the mushroom production room to prevent loss of chilled water temperature, have to be treated as capital goods or their components and would be eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
