2017 (4) TMI 88

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted 11.01.2010 confirms the demand of Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 15,41,007/- alongwith interest and imposition of equivalent penalty against the Appellant. The Order-In-Original also orders for confiscation of the goods namely Stabilizer Furnace valued at Rs. 1,54,38,286/-, and as the said goods are not available for confiscation, a fine of Rs. 15,00,0007 was imposed. 2 (i). The brief facts are that the Appellant manufactures Colour Picture Tubes (CPT) falling under Chapter Heading 85 of Central Excise Tariff. They also avail CENVAT credit on inputs, input services and capital goods under Cenvat Credit Rules. 2 (ii) The Appellant purchased components of 'Furnace' and manufactured three furnaces claiming the benefit o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Furnace' valued at Rs. 1,54,38,288/- on which Revenue claims that Central Excise duty is liable to be paid amounting to Rs. 24,70,126/- @ 16% advalorem. The Appellant's submission is that they used the said furnace for a long period i.e. during the period of 1995 to 2004 and goods are to be treated as capital goods and not new manufactured products. 5. The Appellant is also states that manufacturing of the furnace was done for captive consumption availing benefit of Notification No.67/1995 C.E. dated 16.3.1995. The Appellant further submits that capital goods manufactured for captive use didn't lose their identity of 'capital goods' and cannot become 'manufactured products'. The learned Advocate for the Appell....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....long period. The goods were manufactured during September-November, 1995 and have been cleared by the Invoice dated 16.3.2004. When the Appellant used such goods for such a long period i.e. over eight years, the same cannot be called as "manufactured or produced goods"; they are in the character of 'used capital goods'. The department has not been able to prove that the Appellant assessee removed the goods as such or did not use these as 'capital goods'. Thus, it is a fact that goods have been cleared after their use for long period. 8. It may be mentioned that CESTAT, Bangalore in the case of M/s Madura Coats Pvt Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunvelveli 2005 (190) E.L.T. 450 (Tri. Bang.) has observed as unde....