9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in terms of Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l penalty. Aggrieved by the said orders, the appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (A) and the Commissioner (A) vide different impugned orders confirmed the demand with interest. Aggrieved by the said orders, appellants have filed these three appeals. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the issue involved in the present appeals is no more res integra and has been finally settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. reported in 2014-TIOL-55-SC wherein it was held that when the inputs are used for the manufacture of intended final product, it would be impossible to maintain separate records for unintended byproducts used. The misc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at 2014 (308) ELT 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." 4.1 Similarly in the case of N. S. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE reported in 2016 (335) ELT 540 (Tri.-Del.) in the similar circumstances in para 7 has held as under: "7. We find that the same view has been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Nirma Ltd. (supra) by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rallis India Ltd. (supra) and by the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (supra). Therefore, the appellant are not liable to pay any amount i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
