TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 625X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L No.E/70245/2016-EX[SM] - A/70929/2018-SM[BR] - Dated:- 13-11-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Utkarsh Malviya, Advocate for Appellant Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Joint Commissioner (AR), for Respondent Per: Anil Choudhary This appeal is filed by M/s Eveready Industries India Ltd. against Order-in-Appeal No. NOI-EXCUS-001-APP-0180-15-16 dated 30/11/2015 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise Customs (Appeals), Noida. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of Dry Cell Batteries and availing CENVAT credit facility. During the course of manufacture of dry cell batteries same defective dry cell batteries get manufactured on which no duty is paid. Therefore, it appeared to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l is required in respect of inputs contained in such defective dry cell batteries; (iv) as per CBEC letter F.No. 28/10/68-CX.VII dated 30.08.1969 the RG.1 point should be after final testing and inspection reliance placed on decision reported at 1994 (74) ELT 381 and therefore defective dry cell batteries are waste and scrap‟ arising in the course of manufacture and are not a final product‟; (v) defective dry cell batteries falling under subheading No. 85481090 are not exempted goods‟ as rate of duty column is left blank which means that it is non-excisable; (vi) defective dry cell batteries being non-excisable are not exempted goods‟ and therefore rules 6(3) 6 (3A) of the Credit Rules has no application in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts and circumstances it have been held that CBEC instructions stand in or valued during the relevant period and hence Cenvat credit is admissible in respect of the amount of inputs contained in any of the waste, refuse or bye products. 4. Learned A.R. for Revenue relies on the impugned order. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the facts on record, I find that the issue is squarely covered by the precedent ruling of this Tribunal in appellant s own case vide Final Order dated 01.06.2016 in favour of the appellant. Accordingly, I hold that the show cause notice is not sustainable. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential benefits to the appellant. (Dic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
