TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 797
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sted in the Commissioner of Central Excise. We do not find any merit in these contentions. A show cause notice is intended to notify the tax-assessee that detrimental action is proposed and the adjudication proceedings is required to limit itself to the extent of detriment so proposed. Admission of a claim advanced by the noticee is not a detrimental outcome and can, therefore, never be described as having travelled beyond the notice. We also observe that impugned order has merely acknowledged the admissibility of claim for rebate without granting the rebate or directing that application for rebate be disposed off in a specific manner. 3. In brief, the appellant-assessee, engaged in the manufacture of boilers falling under heading 8402 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, had been clearing their products to customers in India, outside India and also to a special economic zone at Jamnagar. In relation to the clearance of 10 boilers to M/s Reliance Utility Limited, Jamnagar and exports effected, the case of Revenue is that, in addition to manufactured goods emanating from the registered factory, M/s Thermax Ltd supplied certain bought-out items which were first br....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....manufactured in the factory, for assembly at site. 5. On behalf of the appellant, it was also contended, that the appellant is, indisputably, eligible for rebate of duty on inputs bought-out and supplied as exports. It was claimed that it is a well-settled principle of law that what is available as rebate can also be availed as credit. Further, the appellant-assessee, even if regarded as merchant exporter, was entitled to such rebate and hence denial to them as a manufacturer would be grossly inequitable; that the principle and policy of non-exportability of taxes is jeopardized if the contention of the Revenue is accepted. 6. The appellant-assessee cited Flat Products Equipments (I) Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2011 (272) ELT 104], Dicitex Dicor Pvt Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2012 (286) ELT 626] and Finolex Cables Lt. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2007 (210) ELT 76 (Tri.-Mumbai)]. It is seen that in re Flat Products Equipments (I) Ltd (supra) the voluminous nature of the contents compelled piecemeal removal but, as long as value of the bought-out parts is also included in the value of machinery, credit of duty was permissible. In re Dicitex Dicor Pvt ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted at the site of customers owing to physical impossibility of assembling the same and transporting it in that form to the premises where it is to be finally installed. It is not in dispute that the assessee- appellant manufactures pressure parts of boilers in the factory and such other parts as required for the complete installation of the boiler in its functional form is procured from outside. In executing the contracts entered into with the domestic purchasers, the pressure parts are cleared from the factory and the other components are sourced directly for delivery at the erection site. 9. Identical matter had come up for decision before this Tribunal to determine whether the duty liability arises only on the pressure parts or on the boiler, as such, including the bought-out parts. The Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune I v. Thermax Bobcock & Wilcox Ltd [2005 (182) ELT 336 (Tri-Mumbai)] decided that, in view of the sub-heading 8402.10 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules, it is the boiler which is the final product of the manufacturer which, being physically impossible to remove from the factory i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Central Excise, Belapur [2011 (272) ELT 104) (Tri-Mum)] is that: "6. There is no dispute about the fact that the bought out parts have been exported on payment of duty under claim for rebate and the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner has also passed the claim for rebate vide his order dated 29-11-2007 holding that the bought out parts form part of the complete machinery. In the appellant's own case, referred to supra, it was held that even though the goods were cleared in piecemeal the goods were classifiable as rolling mills and galvanising lines and not as parts thereof. What was cleared by the appellant was the complete machine. Further, the Boards circular dated 3-12-2006 makes it abundantly clear that even if inputs are removed as such they could be exported either under bond or under claim for rebate of duty and the CENVAT credit on the parts would be available. In the case of Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (referred to supra) the Honble Apex Court has clearly held that when the amount of CENVAT credit wrongly availed is exactly equivalent to the amount of excise duty paid by not availing the exemption the consequences is revenue neutral and hence the demand f....