TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 554
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....DC dated 28.11.2016 wherein a demand of Rs.10,89,545/- under Section 11A(1) of CEA 1944 confirmed, along with interest under Section 11AA and equal penalty imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, on the ground that the Appellant incorrectly availed the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-CE on relays captively consumed in the manufacture of Control Panels cleared under Notification No. 12/2012-CE without payment of duty. 2. The facts briefly stated are that M/s. GE T&D India Ltd (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellant') manufactures Relays (Chapter 85) and uses them captively in the manufacture of Control Panels (CH 8537). Control Panels are cleared (i) on payment of duty for home consumption, (ii) under exemption Notif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004" for the purpose of proviso (vi) to Notification No. 67/95-CE? and, iii. Consequentially, whether the demand, interest and penalty can survive? Exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995: - 6.1 The first and central question that falls for determination is whether the Appellant is entitled to the benefit of captive consumption exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 as amended, in respect of relays manufactured and used captively in the manufacture of control panels, when such final products are (i) cleared on payment of duty, (ii) exported under LUT, and (iii) cleared without payment of duty under Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012. 6.2 Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....void cascading duty on in-house intermediates; that scheme cannot be lightly defeated merely because some final clearances avail a separate benefit under a general exemption notification. The Tribunal in Appellant's own case pertaining to an earlier period (Final Orders of this Bench) has already accepted this position, holding that clearances under such project/specific exemptions do not, per se, strip the assessee of Notification No. 67/95 benefit. 6.6 In view of the above, on the first issue, we hold that the Appellant's relays, captively consumed in the manufacture of control panels, are in principle covered by the main body of Notification 67/95-CE, and the only surviving question is whether the Appellant satisfies the saving clause....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... On the doctrine of consistency and judicial discipline, it would not be open to us now to ignore that settled factual and legal position in the Appellant's own case, in the absence of any new material. 6.10 In these circumstances, we are unable to agree with the conclusion of the lower authority that the Appellant has "not discharged" obligations under Rule 6 of CCR, 2004. On the contrary, given the factual position and the Tribunal's own earlier view in Appellant's favour on the same pattern of clearances, we hold that the Appellant falls within proviso (vi) to Notification 67/95-CE. Accordingly, we answer Issue (2) in favour of the Appellant. Issue 3 (Para 5(iii)): Sustainability of demand, interest and penalty 6.11 Once we h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....& Schneider Electric Infrastructure Ltd. Appellant Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai 2019 (3) TMI 2034 - CESTAT CHENNAI and M/s. Areva T&D India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai 2018 (4) TMI 1944 - CESTAT CHENNAI for different periods wherein it has been held as follows. "6. We find that the issue stands covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case as reported in 2019-TIOL-1265 CESTAT-MAD. The relevant part reads as under: - 2. Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of various types of relays falling under CETA 85364900 which are cleared for home consumption as well as for export under Letter of Undertaking. They also clear relays for captive ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecorded that the Rule prescribing the obligation is not applicable to the clearances now under dispute. However, he proceeded to confirm the demand on the ground that the appellant did not discharge the obligation of the said Rule. We find that the conclusion of the original authority is self-contradictory. 5.2 On careful consideration of the facts of the case and submissions of the appellants, we note that the eligibility of the appellant-assessee for exemption under Notification No. 67/1995 cannot be disputed. They have followed the provisions and complied with the provisions of Rule 6 and all the connected requirements of the Notification No. 67/1995. We find that the ratio and findings of the lower authorities are not legally s....