Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Samcor Glass Ltd. vs C.C.E., Jaipur on 3 April, 2001
ORDER K.K. Bhatia, Member (T)
1. The appellants manufacture 14" & 17" T.V. Glass Shells falling under Sub-heading 7008.20 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants are manufacturing these Glass Shells from the Glass Panels, Glass Funnels and Glass Necks falling under the same Heading and captively consuming the same. The end product viz. Glass Shells are removed from the premises of the appellants without payment of duty on CT-2 certificate by following the Chapter X procedure in terms of the provisions of Notfn. No.47/94-CE (NT) dt. 22.9.94.
2. The issue under consideration in this appeal is whether the internally consumed goods viz., Glass Panels, Glass funnels and Glass necks wold be entitled to the exemption under Notfn. No. 67/95-CE dt. 16.3.95 as amended. This exemption notification provided exemption inter alia to the specified goods manufactured in a factory and used within the factory of production in or in relation to the manufacture of final products as specified provided that such exemption would not apply to inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products which are exempt from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon or chargeable to 'Nil' rate of duty.
3. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur vide his order dt. 15.9.2000 has held that the exemption under this notification to the aforestated intermediary goods will not be available as such goods are covered by the proviso to the impugned notification. Consequently, the Commissioner in his order has confirmed a demand of duty of Rs. 31,60,168/- on the appellants for the period 30.9.99 to 4.2.2000 under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. the Commissioner in his order has further imposed a penalty of Rs.32 lakhs on the party under Rule 173Q.
4. The present appeal is against the above order of the Commissioner. We have heard Shri R. Swaminathan, Consultant for the appellants and Shri Ashok Mehta, SDR for the respondents. when the matter was called, both the sides submitted that the issue under consideration already stands settled in favour of the appellant by the Tribunal decision in the case of the same party and is reported in 2001 (43) RLT 302 (CEGAT-DEL). This decision is on the same facts and the provisions of law - the only difference being the period in respect of which the demand was confirmed on the party. The earlier decision covered the period from 1.3.99 to 28.9.99 whereas the present proceedings relate to the period from 30.9.99 to 4.2.2000.
5. Since admittedly, the matter already stands covered in favour of the same appellants by the above stated decision of the Tribunal, we follow the ratio and allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the Commissioner.
(Announced and dictated in the Court).