TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1267
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ious toys, puzzles etc. classifiable under Chapter Heading 95.02 and 95.03 and availing the benefit of excise duty exempted under Notification No. 10/2003-CE dt.1.3.2003. The appellants did not avail Cenvat Credit on any of the inputs used in the manufacture either dutiable final product or exempted final product. The appellants are also manufacturing packing boxes for these toys and games and used captively. On this captive consumption of the boxes which are used for the manufacture of final product, the appellant is availing exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE dt. 16.3.1995. In respect of these boxes the appellant also not taken credit in respect of the input used in the manufacture of the said boxes. The appellants were issued show....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T. 13 (S.C.) (iii) Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Belgaum 2007 (212) E.L.T. 234 (Tri.-Bang.) (iv) Sakthi Sugars Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem 2008 (230) E.L.T. 676 (Tri.-Chennai) Affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court Commissioner V. Sakthi Sugar Ltd. 2016 (332) E.L.T. A194(S.C.] (v) Commr. of Cus. & C. Ex., Tirupati Vs. Lanco Industries Ltd. 2008 (227) E.L.T. 395 (Tri.-Bang.) (vi) Bhushan Steel & Strips Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. (Appeals), Ghaziabad 2015 (326) E.L.T. 729 (Tri.-Del.) (vii) Union of India Vs. Sonic Electrochem (P) Ltd. 2002 (145) E.L.T. 274 (S.C.) (viii) Automobile Corporation of Goa Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tate Electricity Board Vs. Collector of C. Ex. Hyderabad 1994 (70) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) (iv) Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. 2004 (166) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.) (v) A.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Collector of C.Ex. Hyderabad 1994 (70) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) (vi) Aristo Pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Bhopal 2000 (121) E.L.T. 386 (Tribunal) (vii) South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India 1978 (2) E.L.T. J 336 (S.C.) (viii) Nestle India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Chandigarh II 2011 (270) E.L.T. 575 (Tri.-Del.) (ix) Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai 2010 (260) E.L.T. 338 (S.C.) (x) S.S. Bedi & Sons Vs. Commission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in a factory and used within the factory of production in or in relation to manufacture of final products specified in column (2) of the said Table; from the whole of the duties of excise leviable thereon which is specified in the Schedules to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) or additional duty of excise leviable thereon, which is specified in the Schedule to the said Special Importance Act; Provided that nothing contained in this notification shall apply to inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products which are exempt from the whole of the duty of excise or additional duty of excise leviable thereon or are chargeable to nil rate of duty, other than those goods which are cleared,- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e exemption shall not apply to inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product which are exempt from the whole of the duty of excise or chargeable to nil rate of duty. However, though the exemption is not available to the intermediate goods used in the exempted goods but exception was provided that even if the final product is exempted and the assessee discharge the obligation prescribed in Rule 6 of Cnevat Credit Rules, 2001 then in spite of the final product is exempted, the exemption on the intermediate goods is available in terms of the aforesaid notification. Now we have to see whether the appellant have discharged the obligation under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2000 which is reproduced below: "Rule 6. Ob....