Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2005 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (4) TMI 144 - CESTAT, CHENNAIAppeal - fixing of handle to container - benefit of Notification No. 67/95-C.E - demand of duty - Additional ground - Penalty - HELD THAT:- We find that it is not in dispute that the fixing of handle to container was done by them in the premises of M/s. APCL and that the latter used the resulting containers for packing their product viz. paints. It appears from the relevant findings of the authorities below that this fact stands accepted by the Revenue. If that be the case, M/s. TPCL were clearly entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-C.E. in respect of the container-handles inasmuch as the said item was captively consumed by M/s. TPCL and M/s. APCL. It is settled law vide the case law cited by ld. Counsel that, under Notification No. 67/95-C.E., inputs/capital goods could be captively consumed in a given factory by different manufacturers. It is, again, settled law that the benefit of an exemption Notification could be claimed at appellate stage. This is what M/s. TPCL has done in this case. We, therefore, allow the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-C.E. to M/s. TPCL in respect of the container-handles and, accordingly, set aside the demand of duty. It would follow that the penalties on M/s. TPCL cannot be sustained. A benefit will, incidentally, flow from this decision to APCL insofar as the penalty imposed on them under Rule 198 is concerned, and we vacate that penalty also. In the result, after setting aside the impugned order, we allow both the appeals.
|