9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp; for the appellant Shri R. K. Majhi, DR for the respondent ORDER The present appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 26.05.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi. The appellant is a manufacturer of photocopier parts, television parts, telephony apparatus etc. classifiable under chapter 84 and 85. The appellant also manufacture moulds which are used within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e authority and consequently appeal has been filed before the Tribunal. 2. The appellant in appeal has submitted that the moulds in question were transferred to their own unit in Noida since the original unit was closed and the entire manufacture with capital goods were transferred to their Noida unit. However, the moulds have not been transferred to their customer. They further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir factory for manufacture of moulded parts and are eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995. This cannot be subjected to duty only on the ground that invoices have been raised and the payment for the same has been recovered. The duty demand has arisen for the reason that the moulds have been transferred to appellant's own factory at Noida. Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Noida, such duty will be available as cenvat credit to the recipient factory inasmuch as the original and the destination factory belong to the same manufacturer and in fact since the former merged with the later, the whole exercise will lead to the revenue neutral situation and no useful purpose will be served while charging duty for such clearances. 6. In line with the above discussion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
