TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (4) TMI 448
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2/2003-C.E., dated 31-3-2003 were removed to granite quarries for raising granite, which was then taken to the factory for the manufacture of granite blocks, monuments etc. When the operations at the quarry were over, the capital goods were shifted to another quarry for similar operations. The operations at each quarry were undertaken by the appellants under an agreement entered into between them and the quarry-owner. This agreement conferred on the appellants the right to raise granite for a determinate period against payment of a royalty to the quarry-owner. The movement of the capital goods from EOU to quarry and from quarry to quarry were monitored by the department. These movements were made after obtaining the requisite approval....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tarakeshwar Sio Thakur Jiu v. Bar Dass Dey and Co. and Ors. [AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1669] and accordingly it should have been held that the requirement of para 4(i) of the Notification had been fulfilled; and (c) once the requisite permission of the departmental authorities was obtained for removal of the capital goods from EOU to quarry as also from quarry to quarry, it was not open to them to raise such a demand of duty. Contextually, learned Counsel fairly points out that, on a set of facts by and large similar to the facts of this case, this Bench denied waiver and stay in G.T.P. Granites v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem [2007 (209) E.L.T. 106 (Tri.-Chennai)]. However, it is the case of the learned Counsel that the arguments so....