TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s exempted. However, in case where goods manufactured are dutiable at the time of manufacture, Rule 6(3) will not be applicable. Similar issue decided in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THIRUNELVELI Versus DCW LTD. [2008 (10) TMI 380 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that For the provisions of Rule 57CC(1) to apply, there should be one final product which is dutiable and another final product which is exempted from payment of duty or chargeable to “Nil” rate of duty. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/350/08-Mum - A/88949/17/SMB - Dated:- 21-7-2017 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri. H.G. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. Sanjay Hasija, Superintendent (A.R.) for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time of manufacture all the goods were dutiable. Notification No.10/97-CE and Notification No.3/2004-CE are end user based exemption, accordingly since goods are supplied to particular category of buyer, in the present case Indian Navy, the goods are exempted otherwise goods i.e. P.D. Pump is dutiable per se. In this fact Rule 57CC/ 57AD and Rule 6(3)(a) have no applicability, accordingly, demand is not sustainable. He submits that on the issue of same notification, this Tribunal has decided the issue in hand, in the following decisions. (a) (Greaves Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Chennai[2007(211) ELT 563(Tri. Chennai)] (b) Commissioner of Central Excise, Mudurai Vs. DCW Ltd[2009(234) ELT 163(Tri. Chennai)] (c) Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such exempted goods. He placed reliance on the following decisions: (a) Jubilant Life Science Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune[2016(343) ELT 1165(Tri. Mumbai)] (b) R.R. Paints Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Mumbai-III[2014(33) STR 156 (Bom)] (c) Commissioner of C. Ex. Thane-I Vs. Nicholas Piramal(India) Ltd[2009(244) ELT 321(Bom)] (d) Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Cus., C. Ex. Bhopal[2003(160) ELT 928(Tri. Del.)] (e) M/s. Mahindra Sona Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik[2016-TIOL-1174-CESTAT-MUM] 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. 5. I find that the appellant have manufactured P.D. Pump, which is p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is not open to the Revenue to say that a part of the quantity of Caustic Soda Flakes manufactured and removed from the factory during the period of dispute was one final product and the remaining quantity of the same final product was another final product. The requirements of Rule 57CC(1) were not met in this case, as rightly held by the lower appellate authority. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Above decision of the Tribunal was upheld by dismissing appeal of the Revenue by the Hon'ble Madras High Court reported as Commissioner of Central Excise, Thirunelveli Vs. DCW Ltd [2011(274) ELT 183(Mad.)] wherein Hon'ble Madras High Court given following findings: 2. The above said two manufactured goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipulated in the notification above mentioned, that they do not attract duty liability. This does not make the goods in question, non-dutiable or exempt. I am fortified in my view by the decisions of the Tribunal in Greaves Ltd Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai [2007 (211) E.L.T. 563 (Tri.-Chennai)] and Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai v. DCW Ltd. [2009 (234) E.L.T. 163 (Tri.-Chennai)]. The above decisions are in the context of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 Rule 6 which is the relevant rule in the present case, is pari materia with Rule 57CC in the sense that both require manufacture of two categories of products, namely, one excisable and the other exempted. 3. Following the ratio of the ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The case of the appellants is that a final product which is chargeable to duty but which could also be cleared without payment of duty under certain circumstances or on the fulfilment of certain conditions under the provisions of an exemption Notification can hardly be treated as any other final product as clearance under an exemption Notification cannot render the product different from the same product cleared on payment of duty. This case of the appellants is in keeping with the provisions of Rule 57CC. This Rule would apply to a manufacturer who was engaged in the manufacture of a final product which was chargeable to duty and any other final product which was exempt from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereof or was char ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
