Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Hartech Plastic (P) Limited Versus CCE, New Delhi

2016 (8) TMI 788 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Captive consumption - whether transfer of the moulds to appellant’s other unit violate the condition in the Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 to the effect that the moulds enjoy the exemption as long as they are used within the factory of manufacture - Held that:- the condition specified in the notification is not violated inasmuch as the factory itself has moved to Noida and since the mould in question continues to be used within the factory it cannot be said that the moulds have been .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cise Appeal No. 1857 of 2008 - Final Order No. 52293/2016 - Dated:- 23-6-2016 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) and Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Sh. Ravinder Singh, Consultant 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed by the original authority upon their transfers to the appellant s other unit situated at Noida for the reason that the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 will not be available to the appellant inasmuch as the moulds have been cleared from the factory. The duty demand confirmed by the original authority was affirmed by the appellate authority and consequently appeal has been filed before the Tribunal. 2. The appellant in appeal has submitted that the moulds in question were .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tant for the appellant and Shri R. K. Majhi, ld. DR for the respondent. 4. Ld. Advocate placed reliance in the case of Elcon Clipsal India Limited vs. CCE, Ahmedabad-I - 2002 (146) ELT 360 (Tri. Del.) and also in the recent order passed in the case of Ozla Plastooraft (P) Ltd. & Manjeet Singh Vs. CCE, Delhi-II - Final Order No. 50217 - 50218/2016 dated 11.02.2016. Ld. DR on the other hand reiterates the views taken by the authorities below. 5. The appellant manufactures moulds and used the s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version