TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontainer was fixed by M/s. TPCL in the premises of M/s. APCL. The value of handle was claimed to have been included in the assessable value of the container borne on the relevant invoice issued by M/s. TPCL to M/s. APCL. This claim was contested by the Department in a show cause notice issued to both the parties. The notice raised a demand of duty on M/s. TPCL for the period April'98 to March'2000 alleging that the cost of handle was not included in the invoiced price of the container. It also proposed penalties on both the parties under Rule 173Q, apart from proposing a separate penalty on M/s. TPCL under Rule 198. These proposals were contested by the parties. The original authority confirmed a demand of duty of Rs. 2,36,953/- against M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through a line of decisions of this Tribunal, a few of which are given below :- (i) Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad [2001 (136) E.L.T. 617 (T) = 2000 (36) RLT 619 (CEGAT)]. (ii) Isgec Covema Ltd. v. CCE, Trichy [2002 (147) E.L.T. 368 (T) = 2001 (46) RLT 638 (CEGAT-Del.)] (iii) Thermax Surface Coatings Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai [2002 (148) E.L.T. 783 (Tri.-Mumbai)]. Ld. Counsel for M/s. APCL submits that any penalty had not been proposed under Rule 209A against them in the show cause notice. 3. The DR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and submits that the plea of exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. was not raised by the assessee before. In Appeal No. 640/2001, ld. JDR submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 67/95-C.E. in respect of the container-handles inasmuch as the said item was captively consumed by M/s. TPCL and M/s. APCL. It is settled law vide the case law cited by ld. Counsel that, under Notification No. 67/95-C.E., inputs/capital goods could be captively consumed in a given factory by different manufacturers. It is, again, settled law that the benefit of an exemption Notification could be claimed at appellate stage. This is what M/s. TPCL has done in this case. We, therefore, allow the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-C.E. to M/s. TPCL in respect of the container-handles and, accordingly, set aside the demand of duty. It would follow that the penalties on M/s. TPCL cannot be sustained. A benefit will, incidentally, flow from this d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
