2015 (11) TMI 771

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .f 10.5.2008. However, I find that the Board’s Circular No.904/24/09-CX dated 28.10.2009 strongly relied upon by the lower authorities stands struck down by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. vs. UOI reported as [2013 (1) TMI 525 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]. Further, vide a recent decision, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd.: [2014 (12) TMI 657 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has set aside the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal reported as [2014 (11) TMI 385 - CESTAT MUMBAI (LB)] and has observed that the amendment in Section 2(d) will not change the scenario inasmuch as the manufacture of waste, refuse, scrap, etc., cannot be considered to be manufactured items in terms of Sect .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f Explanation in the provision of Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act laying down that if for the purpose of this clause, goods include any article, material or substance which is capable of being bought and sold for a consideration and in such case shall be deemed to be marketable. As such, lower authorities by relying upon the said provisions as also to the Boards Circular No.904/24/09-CX dated 28.10.2009, confirmed the demands in the present cases. 3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant draws my attention to the Honble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Rallis India Ltd.: 2009-TIOL-16-HC-MUM-CX vide which the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal was set aside by observing that there is no requirement of reversal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ustries Ltd.: 2015 (315) E.L.T. 10 (Bom.) has set aside the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal reported as 2014 (308) E.L.T. 472 (Tri.-LB) and has observed that the amendment in Section 2(d) will not change the scenario inasmuch as the manufacture of waste, refuse, scrap, etc., cannot be considered to be manufactured items in terms of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. 5.1 In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the amendment in Section 2(d) has not changed the scenario. Accordingly, the law declared in the above decisions of the Honble Supreme Court and the Honble Bombay High Court would apply, read with the decisions of the Honble Allahabad High Court. The impugned orders are accordingly set aside and both the appeals .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X