M/S Jindal Vijaynagar Steel Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 21 October, 2016
In the BPL Display Devices Ltd. case also some of the imported picture tubes were damaged during transit. In respect of those goods, the Honble Supreme Court held the view that such goods should not be denied the benefit of exemption Notification No. 13/97-Cus. The phrase for use has to construed to mean intended for use. This Tribunal in the true spirit of judicial discipline has to follow the Honble Apex Court ruling. Hence looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that even the damaged goods have been put to use as they were segregated in the production department. In any case as the goods which actually did not go into production are covered by Rule 57D, credit cannot be denied on the ground that some of the inputs are contained in waste in relation to the manufacture of final products. The fact that the Departmental officers issued the end-use certificate on the basis of records maintained by the appellants strengthens the case of the appellants regarding time bar. The Order-in-Original has no merits. Hence we allow the appeal with consequential relief.
7.1.