Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 296 - AT - Central ExciseBenefit of N/N. 67/95 denied - captive consumption - Pig iron captively for manufacture of other machinery items/parts, which were further used for repair and maintenance of machinery installed in the factory premises and assessee availed benefit of N/N. 65/95-CE dated March 16, 1995 - benefit of N/N. 67/95 denied on the ground of availment of exemption from duty in terms of N/N. 65/95 dated March 16, 1995. Held that:- The Notification No.217/86-CE as well as successor Notification 67/95 grants exemption to goods, which are captively consumed within the factory for manufacture of further goods, but the provisions of the Notifications excludes the benefit to inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products, which are exempted from whole of duty of excise leviable thereon or are chargeable to nil rate of duty. The Tribunal in the case of Rastriva Ispat Nigam Limited [2002 (8) TMI 188 - CEGAT, BANGALORE], has held that in absence of any definition, the products consumed within the factory would continue to be intermediate products, even when the intermediate products are further captively consumed to manufacture other goods. Ultimately, when certain goods are cleared from the factory, only those goods are to be considered as final products, which are liable to payment of duty - The Tribunal held that so long as duty is paid on the final product, the mere fact that the duty was not paid on the intermediate products, would not disentitle the manufacture from the benefit of N/N 217/86-CE as well as successor Notification 67/95-CE. Revenue neutrality - Held that:- Even if the duty is held as payable on the pig iron used in the manufacture of intermediate products as per show-cause notices, the same will be available as credit to the respondents under the Cenvat Credit/Modvat Credit Rules. Consequently, this will lead to a revenue neutral situation. In such a scenario, there is no justification to demand of duty. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|