9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 892X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of appellant with consequential relief - E/25934/2013-SM - FINAL ORDER No. 20651/2016 - Dated:- 23-8-2016 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. M.S. Nagaraja, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Pakshi Rajan, A.R. For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 715/2012 dated 26/12/2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), vide which he has upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of Plywood, Flush doors, Veneers etc. falling under Chapter 44 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants are availing Cenvat credit on inputs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 are not applicable to waste products. He further submitted that Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, applies only when a manufacturer manufactures exempted final products and dutiable final products and not in a case where the waste scrap arise in the course of manufacture of dutiable final products. He further submitted that the waste scrap of wood are admittedly waste products and are not final products . He also referred to Chapter 5, Para 3.7 of the C.B.E.C. Manual of Supplementary Instructions stipulates that Cenvat credit is admissible in respect of the amount of inputs contained in any of the waste, refuse or by-product. The learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order was passed by the learned Commissioner (App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y same issue had come up before by this Tribunal and the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 20123/2015 dated 23.01.2015 has taken a decision in their favour. 4. On going through the judgments cited supra and considering the submissions made by both the sides, I find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel. In similar facts and circumstances of the case, I have already taken a decision in favour of the assessee in case of M/s MAS Furniture Vs. C.C.E., Mysore [Final Order No. 20646/2016 dated 19/08/2016]. Accordingly, I allow the appeal of the appellant by setting aside the impugned order with consequential relief, if any. (Pronounced in open court on 23/08/2016) - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
