2017 (10) TMI 1021

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ef facts of the case are as follows:- (i) M/s GSC are engaged in the manufacture of toughened glass and the machinery used for the manufacture of toughened glass as well as furnace falling under Chapter 70, 84 & 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants vide their letter dated 04/03/2004 requested to the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-II, Noida, applied for the permission for transfer of certain capital goods manufactured in their said unit to their another unit at Greater Noida for integration at Greater Noida Plant in phased manner and submitted a list of the machinery intended to be shifted. The said list included the machinery on which credit had been availed as well the machinery manufactured ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in their production register and such parts were issued for captive use in their factory on 27/02/2004. Further just after 4 days of the issue of the parts of the machinery for captive use, they applied for the transfer of goods to their unit at Greater Noida on 04/03/2007. Shri Sadu in his statement recorded on 28/10/2004 admitted that the machine parts shifted to their other unit on 15/03/2007 to 17/03/2007 were installed there prior to 29/03/2007. As such the inference was drawn that it took 12 days for installation of the machine at their unit at Noida after which it was used for production before it's transfer to their new unit. (iv) On the basis of above facts it was alleged that when the parts of the machine were issued for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty has drawn the inference that the appellant had wrongly availed the benefit of Notification No.67/95 dated 16/03/1995 which was admissible only for issue of the goods for captive use within the factory itself. It has been held that since the goods were not installed and used in the manufacture of finished goods, the benefit of the said Notification was wrongly availed by them. 3. Being aggrieved the appellant company and its Finance Controller - Shri Rajinder Sadu preferred appeal before ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who was pleased to confirm the demand with penalty on the appellant company. At the same time, he was pleased to set aside the penalty on the Finance Controller - Shri Rajinder Sadu. 4. Being aggrieved the appellant compan....