Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Pune-I vs Telco on 14 February, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPEAL No. E/729/03 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 6/CEX/2002 dated 20.2.2002 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I) For approval and signature: Hon'ble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram (Vice President) and Hon'ble Mr. K.K. Agarwal, Member (Technical) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
====================================================== Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I Appellant Vs. TELCO Respondent Appearance:
Shri Pramod Kumar, Authorised Representative (JDR), for appellant Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate, for respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President and Hon'ble Mr. K.K. Agarwal, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 14.2.2008 Date of Decision: 14.2.2008 ORDER NO.................................
Per: Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President On hearing both sides on the above appeal of the Revenue against dropping of the proceedings for imposition of penalty upon the respondents herein, we find that the assessees' appeal against the confirmation of duty demand of Rs.28,92,990/- by the same impugned order has already been set aside while disposing of their appeal No. E/1713/02, as seen from 2005 (191) ELT 209 wherein the Tribunal has held that input credit in respect of machine parts manufactured in the factory of the respondents and captively used without payment of duty in the maintenance of capital goods and machinery is not deniable even when such machine parts are removed for captive consumption without payment of duty in terms of Notification 67/95-CE dated 16.3.1995.
2. In view of the above, there is no merit in the Revenue's appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
(Pronounced in Court) (K.K. Agarwal) Member (Technical) (Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram) Vice President tvu 1 2