TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rected against the Order-in-Appeal No. 422/99-C.E., dated 15-4-99 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore. 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cement and clinker falling under Chapter heading 25. The appellants during the period from October, 1994 to March, 1995 cleared 4,891 MT, of cement to the Earthquake Relief and Rehabilitation work by a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oduct and not to the intermediate product and the same cannot be exempted in terms of the aforesaid notification. 4. Heard Shri Munir Ahmed, JDR, for Revenue who reiterated the findings. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions. We find that the Notification No. 128/94 allows the exemption to all excisable goods which are listed in the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Act, 1985, donated or purchased out of cash donations, for the relief and rehabilitation of the people affected by the earthquake in the said States from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon under both the above-mentioned Acts. We also take note of the observations made by this Bench in the case of Bochasanwasi Shree Akshar Purushottam Sanstha v. CCE, Bangalore, reported in 2001 (129 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is required to be made only when 'no charge' for the goods have been made. In the case before us, the appellant has paid for the goods i.e. Cement. This payment is for cost of 'goods purchased' which are also exempted from duty by the notification, and such goods will obviously would be charged for and the endorsement as required cannot be made in full on the manufacturers documents as stipulate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
