TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidered as exempted goods, there is no corresponding amendment made in sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 so that the goods that emerged out of process of manufacture falling in clause (1) are also to be considered as exempted goods. As per various decisions, the goods which are not consciously manufactured by the appellants and which emerged in the process of manufacture cannot be considered as goods manufactured by the appellants - Thus, when the zinc scrap which is a waste arising out of process of manufacture of finished goods, is not goods manufactured by the appellant, the same cannot be considered as exempted goods manufactured by them. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No.40968 of 2019 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion to manufacture zinc scrap and therefore these cannot be considered as exempted goods manufactured by the appellant. Though Explanation (1) was added to Rule 6 (1) of CCR, 2004 with effect from 1.3.2015, the same cannot be applied in respect of zinc scrap cleared by the appellant for the reason that sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 has not been amended so as to make the zinc scrap emerging out of manufacture of dutiable goods to be exempted goods manufactured by the appellants. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Sugar Ltd. vide Final Order No.70955-70958/2019 dt. 15.05.2019 and M/s.Triveni Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs CC C.E. ST Noida in Final Order No.71157/2018 dt. 19.06.2018. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants. Thus, when the zinc scrap which is a waste arising out of process of manufacture of finished goods, is not goods manufactured by the appellant, the same cannot be considered as exempted goods manufactured by them. The Tribunal in the case of M/s.Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Ltd. vide Final Order stated supra had occasion to consider the very same issue and held as under : 4. After hearing both the sides duly represented by learned AR, Shri Mohammad Altaf appearing for the Revenue and learned advocate Ms. Stuti Saggi on behalf of the respondent, we find that the issues are no more res integra. The Revenue s only grievance is that the precedent decision followed by the Commissioner (Appeals) would not apply after ame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
