JUDGMENT
Gowri Shankar, Member (Technical)
1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner demanding duty on the cement plant that the appellant manufactured out of the various components of this plant in the factory of Associated Cement Companies Ltd. at Kynore in Madhya Pradesh. The Commissioner finds that, by putting together these components, the appellant brought into existence a cement plant classifiable under Heading 8474.10 and proceeded to demand duty on it.
2. The counsel for the appellant raises the argument that assuming that the goods that it manufactured are excisable movable goods liable to duty, the benefit of the exemption contained in notification 67/95 would be available. The Commissioner before whom this argument was raised, has denied the benefit on the ground that the appellant did not use the plant for the manufacture of any product (before its deemed removal to another person). This is the same argument that the departmental representative reiterates.
3. The notification inter alia exempts capital goods as defined in Rule 57Q “manufactured in a factory and used within the factory of production. It does not contain any condition that the exemption will only be available to the manufacture of the goods, and will not be available if they are sold. We had in a situation, in which as assessee sold of goods, extended the benefit of notification Thermax Surface Coatings Ltd. v. CCE (appeal E/1601/01). The reasons advanced for denial of the exemption therefore is not acceptable. Therefore, the benefit of notification would be available.
4. We have therefore not gone into any of the other arguments, such as that the goods were removable that were raised before us.
5. Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.