TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 75
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is manufacturer of instrumental/power cables. This power cables can be armoured or unarmoured cable depending upon requirements of the customer. The appellant is manufacturing both type of cables. During the course of manufacture of the final product, PVC coated armoured cables, armoured cable emerges. As appellant is clearing the PVC coated armoured cables by availing Notification No.12/2012 -CE dated 17.03.2012. Therefore, the armoured cable manufactured and captively consumed by the appellant is not eligible for exemption under Notification No.67/95 dated 19.03.1995. In these set of facts, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant to demand duty by denying benefit of Notifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not be marketed as such. He also submitted that although, the ld. Commissioner in the impugned order has held that it is capable of being marketable but no instance has been brought on record, how it is marketable. Therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, ld. AR disputed the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel and submits that user test is applied for holding whether the goods in question are marketable or not, if 'Yes' whether the appellant is entitled for benefit of Notification No.67/1995 ibid or not. Admittedly, as per the user test, these goods can be used as the final goods. Therefore, as per the user test, these goods are marketable as the intermediate product is capable of being used for transmiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3.1995 has been examined by this Tribunal in the case of KEI Industries Ltd. (supra), wherein this Tribunal observed as under:- "8. An identical issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of Thermo Cables Ltd. (supra) wherein this Tribunal observed as under: 4. After considering the submissions, we have found great force in the submissions made by the learned counsel. It is not in dispute that the final products were cleared without payment of duty under Notification No.6/2006-C.E. which, at Sl. No. 91 thereof, prescribed nil rate of duty for all goods (falling under any chapter) supplied against international competitive bidding. This exemption was subject to the condition that the goods were exempted from basic custom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....empted goods. This is because their final products were cleared against international competitive bidding in terms of Notification No.6/2006-C.E. ibid. 5. Against the above backdrop, one has to examine the scope of Notification No.67/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995 (as amended) in so far as the present case is concerned. The opening paragraph of this Notification exempts from payment of CE duty any inputs manufactured in a factory and used within the same factory in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. Input must be one of those specified in the first column and the final product must be one of those specified in the second column of the table annexed to the Notification. Admittedly, copper wire is one of the inputs and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted final products as well as dutiable final products. In other words, where the manufacturer manufactures both dutiable and exempted final products and uses the inputs in question in the manufacture of the exempted final products, he is entitled to the benefit of exemption from payment of duty on such inputs in terms of the opening paragraph of the Notification. This right is not hit by the opening portion of the proviso to the Notification as the manufacturer is squarely covered by the exception carved out of the proviso vide clause (vi) under the proviso. The Department, it appears, would like to drive the assessee out of the purview of this exception on the ground that the latter had not discharged the obligation prescribed in Rule 6 of....