Captive-use exemption and revenue neutrality prevent excise duty on invoiced tools, fixtures retained in the factory or transferred within the group.

Tools and fixtures manufactured and retained within the factory for captive use in further manufacture of excisable goods were not liable to excise duty merely because sale invoices were raised, since excise is attracted on clearance and captive consumption for manufacture of other excisable goods falls within Notification No. 67/95-CE. The raising of invoices without physical removal did not by itself create duty liability. For clearances to another unit, where the recipient unit could avail Cenvat Credit of any duty paid, the arrangement was revenue neutral; in that setting, mala fide intent to evade duty could not be presumed and the extended period of limitation was not invocable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether tools and fixtures manufactured and retained within the factory for captive use in further manufacture of excisable goods were liable to excise duty merely because sale invoices were raised. (ii) Whether duty demand on clearances of tools and fixtures to the Pune unit was barred by limitation in view of revenue neutrality.

Issue (i): Whether tools and fixtures manufactured and retained within the factory for captive use in further manufacture of excisable goods were liable to excise duty merely because sale invoices were raised.

Analysis: The goods were used captively within the factory for manufacture of parts of motor vehicles. Excise duty is attracted on clearance of goods, and captive consumption for manufacture of other excisable goods is covered by the exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995. The mere raising of sale invoices, without physical removal from the factory, did not create duty liability on the captive-used tools and fixtures.

Conclusion: The demand of excise duty on the tools and fixtures retained and used captively in the factory was not sustainable and was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether duty demand on clearances of tools and fixtures to the Pune unit was barred by limitation in view of revenue neutrality.

Analysis: The Pune unit was itself engaged in manufacturing excisable goods and was eligible to avail Cenvat Credit of any duty paid by the appellant. The duty, if paid by the appellant, would have been available as credit to the Pune unit, making the exercise revenue neutral. In such a situation, mala fide intention to evade duty could not be attributed, and the extended period of limitation was not invocable. The demand raised beyond the normal period was therefore time-barred.

Conclusion: The duty demand on clearances to the Pune unit was barred by limitation and was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Captive-use goods covered by the applicable exemption notification are not chargeable to duty merely because invoices are raised without physical removal, and where the duty burden is revenue neutral, extended limitation cannot be invoked absent mala fide intent.

---