TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Per : Shri. K.K. Agarwal, Member (Technical) This is Revenue s appeal. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents M/s. Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of tractors and parts including Hydraulic Vary Touch Unit (Hydraulic VTU or VTU). These VTUs were being cleared to their sister units on payment of duty as well as under exemption granted vide Sr. 296 of Notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and since they have not paid duty @ 10% on exempted goods, the show cause notice demanded duty amounting to ₹ 2,47,365/- in respect of the goods cleared under exemption. This duty was confirmed by the lower authority which was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue has come up in appeal against this order. 2. Revenue s in its appeal has contended that the provisions of Rules 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision cited by the Revenue had been distinguished by the Tribunal in the case of CCE vs. Philips India Ltd. 2006 (200) ELT 106 (Tri. Mum) and ETA Technology Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore 2007 (212) ELT 371 (Tri. Bang). These Tribunal decisions had placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. vs. CCE 1996 (81) ELT 3 (S.C.). In these decisions it has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
