Per: Shri P. Dinesha

The Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Relays, Control Panels, ODs switches and parts thereto. Relays were captively used in the manufacture of control panels which are cleared without payment of duty for Mega Power Projects. Department sought to deny the exemption to captively consumed relays under Notification No.67/1995- CE dated 16.03.1995 on the ground that the Control panel, the final product did not suffer duty. Thus, the exemption for captive consumption was rejected citing Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, 2004, for short). Show cause notices were issued for different periods which were adjudicated by the Adjudicating Authority by separate Orders-in-Original which were, on Appeals by Assessee, upheld by the First Appellate Authority vide common impugned Orders-in-Appeal, the details of which are tabulated herein below :

Aggrieved by the aforesaid Orders-in-Appeal, the present Appeals have been filed by Appellant before us.

2. Heard Shri Joseph Prabakar, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant and Shri M. Selvakumar, ld. Assistant Commissioner defended the impugned orders.

3. Ld. Counsel submitted that conditions of Notification No.67/1995-CE were duly complied with and Appellants are covered by the exclusion clause (vii). The said exclusion is applicable when the Assessee complied with the condition of Rule 6 of CCR. In the present case, they have complied with the same. He also submitted that the very same issue stands decided in favour of Appellant in their own case vide Tribunal’s Final Order Nos.42931-42932/2017 dated dt. 14.11.2017 as reported in 2017-VIL-983-CESTAT Chennai as also Final Order No.41432/2025 dt. 05.12.2025 (in Excise Appeal No.40763 of 2018).

4. After hearing both sides, and on perusal of records, we find that the issue involved in these Appeals has already been decided and stands squarely covered by decisions of this Bench vide Final Orders supra. The relevant portion of the Final Order dt. 05.12.2025 reads as under :

“7. We find that it is an already decided issue in the Appellants own case M/s. Alstom T & D India Ltd. (formerly known as Areva T & D India Ltd.) Versus The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai 2023 (9) TMI 863 - CESTAT CHENNAI and M/s. Alstom T&D (India) Ltd. & 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 cap consumption for manufacture of control panels falling under Chapter Heading 85371000 of CETA, 1985 without payment of duty under Notification 67/95-CE dated 16.3.1995. The control panels in turn are cleared for home consumption on payment of duty to export markets under LUT as well as under exemption Notification 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 (Sl. No. 91) as amended, without payment of duty. These control panels are cleared to Mega Power Projects which are exempt under Notification 6/2002 and 6/2006. The department was of the view that they are not eligible for the bene Notification 67/95 as they have not complied with the conditions stipulated therein. The issue stands covered by the decision cited above. The relevant portion is extracted as under: -

“5.1 The facts of the case are not in dispute. The appellant-assessee cleared the control panels availing exemption to Mega Power Projects. For such exemption, the appellant-assessees have complied with the provis