9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al No. E/22156/2014 is taken. The details of the appeals are as under: Appeal No. Period Demand E/21056/2014 March to October 2010 Rs.1,75,083/- E/22156/2014 March 2011 to March 2012 Rs.1,33,977/- E/1789/2012 May 2008 to February 2010 Rs.7,01,116/- 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pig iron, kull granulated slag and ungranulated slag falling under Chapter Subheading 72011000, 72041000 and 26180000 and 26190090 respectively of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It was noticed that they had manufactured and cleared 4128.66 MT of ungranulated slag valued at Rs. 26,79,552/- during the period from March 2011 to March 2012 without payment of duty as per Notification No.4/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 014-TIOL-55-SC wherein it was held that when the inputs are used for the manufacture of intended final product, it would be impossible to maintain separate records for unintended byproducts used. The mischief of recovery of 8% under Rule 57CC on exempted goods which arise out of byproduct was held to be not attracted. The demand of an amount of money under Rule 6(3) which is pari materia under provision to Section 57CC is untenable in law. Learned counsel further submitted that by following the Hon'ble Supreme Court this Tribunal in the case of Hariyana Steel and Power vs. CCE reported in 2015 (325) ELT 400 has also followed the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision and has held that the slag emerged as byproduct / waste during manufacture of sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pra) by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rallis India Ltd. (supra) and by the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (supra). Therefore, the appellant are not liable to pay any amount in respect of clearance of slag/dust which has been cleared by them without payment of duty as same has been emerged during the course of manufacture of M.S. Ingots. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the impugned order, same is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any." 5. By following the ratios of the decisions cited supra, I am of the considered opinion that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the decisions cited supra. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
