2004 (7) TMI 401

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : K.C. Mamgain, Member (T)]. - This appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal No. 67/2001, dated 27-11-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad-I. 2. Shri G. Mohan Rao, Advocate, appeared for the appellants. He pleaded that the appellants had applied to the Superintendent of Central Excise for permission to remove Spaghetti fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssing are not liable for duty. He relied on the following decisions : (i) U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad - 2001 (137) E.L.T. 948 (Tri. - Del.) (ii) Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Madras-I - 2001 (129) E.L.T. 580 (Mad.) (iii) R.B. Narain Singh Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut - 1996 (82) E.L.T. 588 (Tribunal) (iv) Cadila Laboratorie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....learned SDR appearing for Revenue, stated that the appellants had removed Spaghetti for re-processing and instead of manufacturing Spaghetti out of it, they manufactured Vermicelli. Spaghetti is chargeable to duty whereas Vermicelli is exempt from duty. Therefore, if Spaghetti is used in the manufacture of Vermicelli, then they have to pay the duty on Spaghetti. He also stated that from the letter....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es, 1944, the appellants are required to discharge duty liability in case of goods removed for captive consumption; unless there exists an exemption notification for captive consumption. He said that since the appellant have not paid the duty on Spaghetti, which they could not market, and removed it for re-processing and used it in the manufacture of Vermicelli, which is chargeable to nil duty, th....