2000 (4) TMI 518

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Appellant. Shri J.M. Kennedy, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Dr. S.N. Busi, Member (T)]. -  The issue for consideration is whether the broken sleepers removed for remelting within factory of production are liable to pay excise duty or whether such goods are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 217/86-C.E., dated 2-4-1986. 2. Shri K.B. Chakraborty, learned A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Advocate, reiterated the reasoning of the lower Appellate Authority. He argued that since the broken C.I. sleepers are themselves finished goods, they cannot be treated as intermediary products under Notification No. 217/86-C.E. and hence the claim for exemption under the said Notification is legally incorrect. He further pleaded that Appellant ought to have discharged duty liability on the broken....