9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dents : Ganesh Haavanur, Authorised Representative (SDR). ORDER T.K. JAYARAMAN, MEMBER (T) 1. These appeals have been filed against the OIO No. C.Ex.22/2005 dated 26.09.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs Central Excise, Hyderabad-IV Commissionerate. 2. The appellants, for the period upto 30.09.2002, received inputs from M/s. Mahindra Mahindra and did job work of mach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules. The appellants have strongly challenged the impugned order. 2. S/Shri M.S. Nagaraja and T. Rajeswara Sastry, the learned Advocates appeared for the appellants and Shri Ganesh Havanur, the learned SDR appeared for Revenue. 3. The learned Advocates urged the following: Upto 30.09.2002, the appellants cleared the goods wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade out by the Revenue. Further in the case of Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Tirunelveli, it has been held that no duty can be demanded on the used Capital Goods, which have been removed. 4. The learned SDR reiterated the orders of the lower authority. 5. On a careful consideration of the entire matter, we are of the view that the present case is squarely covered by the ratio of the decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pra) that the goods cleared by a job worker under Notification 214/86 should not be deemed to be exempted goods, would also apply. In view of the above points, we feel that the impugned order has no merits. The Cenvat credit availed cannot be demanded. The appellants are not liable for penalty. Hence, we allow the appeals with consequential relief, if any. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
