9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an something less than "used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products". The Tribunal has said that the operative phrases in the exclusion "indicated direct or immediate use in actual production or processing of goods or bring about any change in any substance". We agree Some mentioned characteristics. They are, therefore, exempted from payment of excise duty under the 1986 Notification. We can, in the circumstances, conclude that the Tribunal's interpretation was accepted by the Revenue and they are precluded from taking an inconsistent stand now. Appeal dismissed. - 2721 of 1996 - - - Dated:- 4-11-2003 - Ruma Pal and Ashok Bhan, JJ. [Judgment per : Ruma Pal, J.] - The respondent-assessee manufactures variou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent's appeals and granted it the benefit of the notification. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has preferred this appeal. 3.The benefit of the notification is available in respect of (1) inputs, (2) which are manufactured in the assessee's factory (3) which are used within the factory, (4) in or in relation to the manufacture of final products specified in column (3) of the Table to the notification. There is no dispute that the items in respect of which exemption is claimed fulfil all four conditions. However, the submission of the Revenue is that by virtue of the explanation, the goods in question are excluded from the ambit of the notification. According to the Revenue, the goods are "used for producing or for processing or for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that the word 'used' occurs in the body of the notification and in the exclusion clause. It is argued that unless the word was given a different meaning in the exclusion clause the entire notification would be rendered meaningless. It was finally submitted that the identical issue in respect of a previous period had been decided by the Tribunal in favour of M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. and the benefit of the notification had been granted to it (CEGAT Order No. E/1348/98-B1, dated 2nd September, 1998). The Revenue had not challenged this decision. On the basis of the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal - 249 ITR 219, it is submitted that it is not open to the Revenue to accept the CEGAT judgment in respect of one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, exempted from payment of excise duty under the 1986 Notification. 7.Apart from the question of interpretation of the Notification, the appellant has not offered any explanation why the decision of the Tribunal dated 2-9-98 in M/s. Bajaj Auto case in respect of an earlier year allowing the benefit of the 1986 notification in respect of the gauges manufactured and captively used in the factory of M/s. Bajaj Auto, had not been challenged. We can, in the circumstances, conclude that the Tribunal's interpretation was accepted by the Revenue and they are precluded from taking an inconsistent stand now. [See Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal (supra)]. 8.The appeals are accordingly dismissed with costs. - - TaxTMI - TM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
