2008 (8) TMI 150

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es, for the Appellant. ShriN.J. Kumaresh, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods including spring brake chambers. During the period of dispute (October, 1991 to March, 1996), they had manufactured spring brake chambers for the vehicles factory run by the Ministry of Defence. These goods were manufactur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d and captively consumed in the factory of production of final product). The final product (spring brake chambers) was cleared to the vehicle factory at Jabalpur without payment of duty in terms of Notifications 239/86 and 64/95-C.E. In a show-cause notice, the department demanded duty on the aluminium castings on the ground that the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-C.E. was not admissible to the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Defence Ministry, were not capable of being marketed. It was also found that the marketability of the castings was not otherwise established by the department. In the result, the demand of duty raised on the appellants was dropped. The order of adjudication was reviewed and the department preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate authority allowed that appeal. In the result,....