TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c. have not been manufactured by the appellant and has been provided by their client for use in their factory in the manufacture of the excisable goods for them. Therefore, the question of charging duty on the goods which has been capitvely consumed does not arise at all in view of Notification No. 67/1995. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/56/2009-DB - FO/76553/2018 - Dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed and laminated sheets falling under Sub-Heading No. 7004.10 and 7004.20 of the schedule to the CETA, 1985. The appellant was issued with the show cause notice on the allegation that they have contravened the provisions of Rule 9(1), 173C, 52A and 173G of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short Rules ) read with Section 4 of the Act as they failed to realise the cost of moulds/sample ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lue of the products manufactured using such moulds. The demand has to be with reference to the assessable value of such final products. No exercise is seen to have been done to relate mould and its cost to the respective final products. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner for a fresh decision. Needless to say that the appellant shall be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CCE, Indore Vs. Man Industries (India) Ltd. 2012 (276) ELT 286 (Tri.-Del.), wherein in para 10 of the order has held as under : 10 . As already pointed out above the clear finding to the effect that the respondents have been charging in relation to die research development charges from their customers by raising debit notes without disclosing the said fact to the department and without in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant and has been provided by their client for use in their factory in the manufacture of the excisable goods for them. Therefore, the question of charging duty on the goods which has been capitvely consumed does not arise at all in view of Notification No. 67/1995. In view of above we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. (Pronounced in Court) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
