9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng 2404.41 was fully exempt. The second proviso to this Notification provided that where the use was in a factory of a manufacturer different from his factory, the exemption would be available subject to following Chapter X Procedure. 3. This Notification was amended by Notification 21/96 dated 23-7-1996. The only change made by this amendment was that the aforesaid sub-headings were removed and Chapter 24 was included instead. 4. The Appellants after following the procedure laid down in Chapter X and after submitting CT-2 certificates claimed exemption of the unbranded chewing tobacco, sent by them to the factories of V.H. Patel and Co. w.e.f. 10-9-1998. V.H. Patel and Co specifically sought permission and obtained the same under Chapter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng both sides and considering the material, it is found - (a) The Assistant Commissioner and CCE (Appeals) have travelled beyond the show cause notice and have sustained the demand on grounds not contained in the show cause notice that is not permissible. Their orders are, therefore, illegal. In Prince Khadi Woollen Handloom Prod. Coop. Indl. Society v. CCE - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 637 (S.C.) the Supreme Court held that an exemption could not to be denied on a ground other than originally contended by the Revenue and that an assessee must be given Show Cause Notice for ground of denial of exemption and matter must be proceeded from that stage. This has been followed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in Mahindra & Mahindra (Auto) Ltd. v. CCE, 2000 (122) E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e term 'use' in a factory of a manufacture, would relate to same manufacturer where the goods were produced. In this case of goods manufactured by M/s. Ashwin Enterprises Anand, they could be used in his factory elsewhere i.e. M/s. Ashwin Enterprises, factory different from Anand factory. The use in this case in the factory of M/s. V.H. Patel and Co. at Chalisgon, Bhusawal etc. is not permitted. Since M/s. V.H. Patel is a different manufacturer and use by them in their factories would not be a use in different factory of M/s. Ashwin Enterprises. The appellants' contention on the eligibility to the notification benefit is therefore not to be upheld. The plea of the ld. Advocate of an interpretation of benefit granted and CT-2 certificates we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
