https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110838 Exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. was found unavailable for MS storage tanks and FRP goods because the goods were manufactured in the factory and used captively, and the later-produced job-work agreement and invoice did not rebut that finding. The agreement had not been disclosed during the departmental visit, and the invoice was dated after inspection, so the documents were treated as insufficient to negate the duty-evasion finding. MS storage tanks were also treated as classifiable under Heading 73.09, which was excluded from capital goods for the purpose of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. On that basis, reversal of the duty demand and penalty was held unjustified. en-us Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:53:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110838 Exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. was found unavailable for MS storage tanks and FRP goods because the goods were manufactured in the factory and used captively, and the later-produced job-work agreement and invoice did not rebut that finding. The agreement had not been disclosed during the departmental visit, and the invoice was dated after inspection, so the documents were treated as insufficient to negate the duty-evasion finding. MS storage tanks were also treated as classifiable under Heading 73.09, which was excluded from capital goods for the purpose of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. On that basis, reversal of the duty demand and penalty was held unjustified. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110838