M/s Parryware Roca Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE&CGST, Alwar
Central Excise
2018 (5) TMI 1201 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – 2018 (363) E.L.T. 1000 (Tri. – Del.)
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 16-4-2018
Ex. Appeal No. 50022 of 2018 – A/51411/2018-EX[DB]
Central Excise
Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
Sh. Alok Kothari, Advocate for the appellant
Sh. M. R. Sharma, AR for the Respondent
Per: V. Padmanabhan:
The present appeal is filed against the order-in-appeal No. 202 (SM)CE/JPR/2017 dated 13.09.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Central Goods & Service tax, Jaipur-I.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of '
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ch moulds and dies. Accordingly, demand of Central Excise was raised and penalty was also imposed. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the appellant.
3. With this background, we heard Sh. Alok Kothari, ld. Advocate for the appellant and Sh. M. R. Sharma, ld. AR for the Revenue.
4. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel that the goods i.e. moulds and dies are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 67/1995. He submitted that only after the moulds and dies have become junk the same were cleared to the customer. He argued that on such clearance no duty will be payable as has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Elcon Clipsal India Ltd. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad-I -2002 (146) ELT 360 (Tri. Del.).
5. Ld. AR appearing for the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
home consumption. The monetary consideration has also been received by the appellant on which VAT stands paid. We are of the view that moulds and dies will enjoy such exemption only as long as such goods remain within the factory of the appellant. At the time of clearance of such goods to the customer, the goods are liable to payment of duty, on the transaction value and the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 will not be available at the time of such clearance. We have also perused the case law cited by the ld. Counsel. We note that the facts of that case are different and hence will not be application to the facts of the present case.
7. In the result, the impugned order is upheld. Appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.
(Dictated an
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =