TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Tribunal ruling on exemption eligibility for loom parts used in EOUs and exempted final products</h1> <h3>LAKSHMI AUTOMATIC LOOMS WORKS LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., COIMBATORE</h3> LAKSHMI AUTOMATIC LOOMS WORKS LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., COIMBATORE - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 498 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues:1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification 237/86 CE for parts captively used in looms cleared to 100% EOUs.2. Interpretation of Notification 217/86 CE regarding captively consumed goods in exempted final products.3. Appellant's absence during proceedings and applicability of Larger Bench decision.4. Marketability criteria for parts of looms.5. Valuation of parts of automatic looms for assessment.Eligibility for Exemption under Notification 237/86 CE:The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) considered whether parts captively used in looms cleared to 100% EOUs before 1-3-92 were eligible for exemption under Notification 237/86 CE. The Collector noted that prior to the amendment made by Notification 33/92, the exemption was available only if the final product was chargeable to excise duty. The Collector differentiated the case from Shaw Wallace, emphasizing that the benefit under Notification 217/86 was specifically for goods used in final products cleared on duty payment to free trade zones or 100% EOUs from 1-3-92. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's reliance on Premier Tyres, stating that the exemption did not apply if final products were chargeable to nil duty.Interpretation of Notification 217/86 CE:The Collector held that there was no one-to-one correlation between input and final product, denying exemption under Notification 217/86 CE for captively consumed goods in exempted final products. The Tribunal concurred, citing the specific wording of the notification that captively consumed goods would not be exempt if final products were chargeable to nil duty. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's argument, upholding the Assistant Collector's decision that captively consumed goods used in final products cleared to 100% EOUs were ineligible for exemption.Appellant's Absence and Larger Bench Decision:Despite the appellant's absence, the Tribunal proceeded based on the submissions of the Departmental Representative. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's adjournment request due to the matter's age and the existence of a Larger Bench decision, L & T Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise Mumbai. The Tribunal decided to address the case on its merits following the principles established in the cited Larger Bench decision.Marketability Criteria and Valuation:The Collector found that the parts of looms were marketable as replacement parts, meeting the marketability criteria. Regarding valuation, the Collector agreed with the appellant that the value of automatic loom parts could not be determined by deducting bought-out parts' value from the total assessable value. The matter was remanded for reassessment of the parts' value in accordance with valuation rules. The Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision on marketability and valuation, dismissing the appeal based on the Larger Bench decision's precedent.This comprehensive analysis covers the issues of eligibility for exemption, interpretation of notifications, procedural aspects, marketability criteria, and valuation considerations as addressed in the legal judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Chennai.
TaxTMI 