TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 57(F)(4) is to be restricted to such converted inputs which are not desired to be used any further in manufacture of final product - the decision of the Larger Bench has been upheld by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KERALA VERSUS BINANI ZINC LTD. [ 2009 (10) TMI 133 - SUPREME COURT] . It is found that the lower authority have relied upon the minority view to confirm the demand which is against the settled principle of the law that majority decision is a binding precedents. The Tribunal in the case of COMET BRASS INDUSTRIES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DAMAN [ 2005 (6) TMI 355 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] while referring to the judgment of the Wyeth Laboratories Ltd has held that the entire pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... April 2009 to December 2009 25.08.2011 [Order-in-Appeal] Duty: Rs. 19,62,854/- Penalty: 19,62,854/- Interest E/57058/2013 (3rd Appeal) December, 2010 to October, 2011 28.01.2013 [Order-in-Original] Duty: Rs. 57,36,277/- Penalty: 57,36,277/- interest Since the issue involved in all the three appeal is identical therefore, all the three appeals are taken up together for discussion and decision. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s YKK India Pvt. Ltd is engaged in the manufacture of Slide Fastereners (Metallic and Non-Metalic), chains and sliders ( Final Products ) failing under chapter heading 9607 19, 9607 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting waste sent on the job work challans are neither the inputs cleared as such nor inputs which have been partially processed. Therefore, such clearance appears to be considered as goods cleared without payment of appropriate duty which is liable to be recovered: c. Rule 4(5)(a) of the Credit Rules provides that the CENVAT credit shall be allowed even if any inputs or capital goods as such or after being partially processed are sent to a job worker for further processing, testing, repair, re- conditioning or for the manufacture of intermediate goods necessary for the manufacture of final products. However, the brass scraps are neither inputs and nor were partially processed . 5. The appellant filed replies to the show cause noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the job worker as prescribed under the notification. Further, in compliance of the procedure under the notification, the appellant had given proper intimation to the Assistant Commissioner vide letter dated 03.07.2007. 8. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the issue involved in the present cases is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon ble Larger Bench in the case of Wyeth Laboratories Ltd. cited (Supra). He further submitted that the said decision was upheld by the Hon ble Apex Court in CCE, Kerala Vs. Binani Zinc Ltd [ 2009 (243) ELT 648 (SC)]. He further submitted that in the case of Jain Metal Components Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2006 (206) ELT 842 (Tri)]. The Tribunal in identical facts by relying upon the judgment of Wyeth Labora ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not followed by the field formations. Hon ble Tribunal had thus, set aside the order which was based on the minority view expressed in the Larger Bench s decision in Wyeth Laboratories Ltd. With regard to imposition of penalty. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that since no duty is payable in the present case, the demand of penalty is not sustainable and interest is also not demandable. 10. On the other hand, Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 11. After considering the submissions made by both the parties and perusal of the material on record, we find that this issue is no more res-integra and has been settled by the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Wyeth Laboratories Ltd cited (Supra) wherein it was spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal in the case of Comet Brass Industries cited (Supra) while referring to the judgment of the Wyeth Laboratories Ltd has held that the entire purpose of setting down the disputed issue is defeated of majority decisions are not followed by the field formations and further the Tribunal set aside the order which was based on the minority view expressed in the Larger Bench s decision in the case of Wyeth Laboratories Ltd cited (Supra). 13. In these appeals also the impugned orders are based upon minority view in the case of Wyeth Laboratories Ltd to confirm the demand which according to us is not sustainable in law. 14. In view of our discussion above and by following the ratio of the above said decisions, we hold that the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
