9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SH 4005.10 - Before application of Rule 57CC, the manufacturer should classify his final products, correctly and ascertain whether some of such products are dutiable and other exempted - Appeal is disposed of - E/2174/2003 - A/343/2010-WZB/C-II/(EB) - Dated:- 12-10-2010 - S/Shri P.G. Chacko, M. Veeraiyan, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri V.K. Singh, JDR, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. This appeal was filed by the Revenue, aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the demand of duty confirmed against the assessee (present respondent) by the original authority. The appellant is represented today by the learned SDR. There is no representation for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondents and imposed on them a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. The appeal filed by the aggrieved party was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals), who took the view that the procedure adopted by the assessee was in accordance with the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd., v. CCE, Nagpur, 1996 (81) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). At present, the Revenue is aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. The learned SDR has, at the outset, referred to the relevant entries, which we reproduce below: 40.05 Compounded rubber, unvulcanised, in primary forms or in plates, sheets or strip, other than the forms and articles of unvulcanised rubber described in heading No. 40.06 4005.10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt has relied on the Tribunal s Larger Bench decision in Nicholas Piramel India Ltd., 2008 (232) E.L.T. 37 (Tri.- LB.) wherein it was held that reversal of credit irregularly taken on inputs used in the manufacture of exempted final product was as good as non-availment of the credit and, therefore, any demand of duty on the exempted final product was not justifiable. The learned SDR, at this stage, points out that the said decision of the Tribunal has been set aside by the Hon ble High Court of Bombay vide CC v. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd., 2009 (244) E.L.T. 321 (Bom). We have found this submission of the SDR to be factually correct. As rightly submitted by the learned SDR, the issue involved in the instant case is one on which Nicholas Pir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
