https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331404 Moulds manufactured for captive use remained covered by Notification No. 67/95-CE when they were transferred to the same manufacturer's Noida unit after closure and shifting of the original factory. The movement was treated as a continuation of the same manufacturing activity, not a clearance out of the factory in the sense contemplated by the notification, so the exemption condition was not breached. The duty demand was also considered unsustainable because any duty paid would have been available as CENVAT credit to the recipient unit, making the transaction revenue neutral. en-us Thu, 23 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Jan 2017 14:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331404 Moulds manufactured for captive use remained covered by Notification No. 67/95-CE when they were transferred to the same manufacturer's Noida unit after closure and shifting of the original factory. The movement was treated as a continuation of the same manufacturing activity, not a clearance out of the factory in the sense contemplated by the notification, so the exemption condition was not breached. The duty demand was also considered unsustainable because any duty paid would have been available as CENVAT credit to the recipient unit, making the transaction revenue neutral. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 23 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331404