2018 (10) TMI 1541

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ojects. It appeared to the department that for such supplies, the appellants were required to discharge excise duty under Notification No.12/2012-CE dt. 17.03.2012 as amended which was not done by them. Department also took the view that benefit of Notification No.67/95-CE dt. 16.06.95 would not be available to the appellants for the intermediate products. Proceedings initiated against the appellants culminated in adjudication order dt. 30.12.2016 resulting in confirmation of duty demand of Rs. 28,06,097/- with interest thereon and also imposition of penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dt. 30.09.2017 rejected the appeal. Hence the appellants are before this forum 2.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Govindarajan supports the impugned order. 4.1 After hearing both sides, we find that the Ld. Counsels are correct in their assertion that the matter is covered by a gamut of decisions of the Tribunal. 4.2 In Bharat Aluminium Co.Ltd. Vs CCE Raipur - 2017 (345) ELT 685 (Tri.-Del.), the Tribunal inter alia held as under : "3. The ld. AR submitted that the exemption for the final product itself has not been categorically established. In such situation, the applicability of proviso in Notification No. 67/95-C.E. cannot be automatically made. However, we note that the original authority discussed extensively the applicability of sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) of Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 and there is no mention or discussion regarding appellant's elig....