9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1071X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LTD. [ 2011 (9) TMI 878 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] where it was held that It is an unconditional exemption which provides exemption to capital goods manufactured in a factory and used within the factory. It is not the case of the Revenue that goods have been removed from the factory at all. Once goods are manufactured and used in the same factory, the notification squarely applies. Thus, it can be seen that the facts in the above cited decision and the facts of the present case in the appellant s own case are absolutely identical. The present impugned order is not sustainable - Appeal allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ission made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that we agree with the learned counsel that the issue is no longer res-integran the light of the decision of this Tribunal in the appellant's own case reported as CCE, Vadodara V/s. Automotive Stamping Assemblies Ltd, 2011(9) TMI 878-CESTAT Ahmedabad. The said order is reproduced below: "The brief facts of the case are that respondent manufactured tools and dies for a customer and used the same in their own factory for manufacture of components for the same customer. The respondent recovered the price of such tools and dies from the customer by raising a commercial invoice. However, no duty was paid. Revenue took a view that duty should have been paid on such tools and dies. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not be available to the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon several decisions of the Tribunal and the Notification to submit that irrespective of the ownership of the goods, the test for eligibility under Notification No. 67/95 is whether the goods have been consumed in the same factory where they have been produced or not and in this case it is not the case of Revenue that goods have been removed from the factory. 3. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. As regards GTA service, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the 3. case of ABB Ltd., the issue is no longer res integra. In this case the period involved is prior to 1-4-2008 when the definition of input ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
