1997 (7) TMI 300

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Appeal and two separate numbers had been given to the same appeal. As two separate numbers had been given to the same appeal, the present order will dispose of both the numbers. 2. The matter relates to the applicability of exemption Notification No. 216/86-C.E., dated 2-4-1986 to the period from 1-3-1986 to 1-4-1986 by virtue of the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Tungsten Powder, which was classifiable under T.I. 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff prior to 28-2-1986. In these proceedings, we are concerned only with that part of the Tungsten Powder, which was used captively by the manufacturer in their own factory for the manufacture of Tool Tips....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Exemption) Act, 1986. The Notification No. 217/86-C.E. was issued under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tungsten Powder was exempted prior to the change over when used captively in the manufacture of Tool Tips in the factory of manufacture. There is no dispute that the Tungsten Powder was used captively in the same factory of manufacturer, in the manufacture of Tool Tips. The exemption which was available prior to the change over had been restored on 2-4-1986. Retrospective effect had been given to the same under the Act referred to above. 5. We may also refer to the statement of objects and reasons while introducing the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Bill, 1986 in the Parliament on ....