2008 (2) TMI 919

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Respondents 01.02.08 JUDGEMENT Per : Shri. K.K. Agarwal, Member (Technical) This is Revenue's appeal. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of tractors and parts including Hydraulic Vary Touch Unit (Hydraulic VTU or VTU). These VTUs were being cleared to their sister units on payment of duty as well as under exemp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ovisions 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules and since they have not paid duty @ 10% on exempted goods, the show cause notice demanded duty amounting to ₹ 2,47,365/- in respect of the goods cleared under exemption. This duty was confirmed by the lower authority which was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue has come up in appeal against this order. 2. Revenue's in its appeal has contend....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er Excise however submits that the decision cited by the Revenue had been distinguished by the Tribunal in the case of CCE vs. Philips India Ltd. 2006 (200) ELT 106 (Tri. Mum) and ETA Technology Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore 2007 (212) ELT 371 (Tri. Bang). These Tribunal decisions had placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. vs. CCE 1996 (81) ELT 3 (S....