https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344747 Exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. was confined to the specified energy device and parts covered by List 9, and did not extend to parts cleared to another factory for further use where captive consumption in the manufacturer's factory was required. Parts could not be treated as the exempt device itself, and clearance without satisfying the exemption conditions rendered the goods dutiable. The duty demand was therefore correctly raised on the manufacturer at the time of removal, and the cenvat credit reversed under Rule 6(3)(b) had to be adjusted against the duty liability. en-us Tue, 16 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Aug 2017 12:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344747 Exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. was confined to the specified energy device and parts covered by List 9, and did not extend to parts cleared to another factory for further use where captive consumption in the manufacturer's factory was required. Parts could not be treated as the exempt device itself, and clearance without satisfying the exemption conditions rendered the goods dutiable. The duty demand was therefore correctly raised on the manufacturer at the time of removal, and the cenvat credit reversed under Rule 6(3)(b) had to be adjusted against the duty liability. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 16 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344747