TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal relied the decision in the case of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. [2004 (12) TMI 108 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] - The Hon'ble Division Bench noted that the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd., was approved by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner Vs. Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. [2008 (8) TMI 783 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1275 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 14-8-2018 - T. S. Sivagnanam And V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, JJ. For the Appellant : Ms.P.Srija for Mr.E.Vijay Anand For the Respondent : Mr.A.P.Srinivas ORDER Judgment was delivered by T. S. Sivagnanam, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order, followed the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [(2005) 183 ELT 353 (Tri. - LB)]. The Tribunal further recorded that the Revenue impliedly conceded that the said decision of the Larger Bench covers the issue, yet contested the matter raising various contentions. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the said decision of the Larger Bench was rendered on a similar set of facts, as, in that case also, the job worker had cleared a part of their production on payment of duty, which was independent production of their own. 4. Simultaneously, rest of their production covered by job work, was cleared to principal manufacturers without payment of duty in terms of Notific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Ltd. [reported in (2014) 304 ELT A16] and also the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sivaramakrishna Forgings Pvt. Ltd. [reported in (2015) 322 ELT 697]. 8. In the light of the fact that the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal stood approved in the decision of the Bombay High Court and that the same was referred to by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order, we find that there is no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. 9. Thus, the above civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by confirming the order passed by the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
