9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of two joint final products and not in case of a final product and waste product or byproduct. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in not following the rulings of Hon’ble Supreme Court and in trying to distinguish the same, thus is guilty of not following the Articles 141 of the Constitution of India which provides – ‘the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India’. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 50070 - 50072 of 2018 - A/52737-52739/2018-EX[DB] - Dated:- 12-7-2018 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. C L Mahar, Member (Technical) Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate for the Appellants Shri S K Bansal, AR for the Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 57 D ibid has concluded that by-product generated as the technical necessity during the manufacture of final product cannot be equated with each other because the legislature itself has treated them differently. The Rules and Act have to be read as a whole, together for true and correct interpretation of these Rules. It means the ratio of these two judgements of Hon ble Supreme Court is applicable to only those cases which are in the context of erstwhile Rule 57CC and Rule 57 D ibid. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants have taken us to the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd [2014 (303) ELT 321 (SC)] wherein the question for determination before the Supreme Court was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our and meaning from the accompanying words waste and refuse . By-product cannot in any event mean final products. This only means that modvat credit cannot be denied on the ground that in the course of manufacture of excisable goods, by-products also arise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: 25. These arguments may seem to be attractive. However, having regard to the processes involved, which is already explained above and the reasons afforded by us, we express our inability to be persuaded by these submissions. We have already noticed above that in the case of Birla Copper (C.A. No. 2337 of 2011) the Tribunal has decided the matter following the judgment in the case of Swadeshi Limited (supra). In that case, Ethylene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same common inputs becomes understandable. This Rule did not talk about emergence of final product and a by-product and still said that Rule 57CC will apply. The appellant seeks to apply Rule 57CC when Rule 57D does not talk about application of Rule 57CC to final product and by-product when the by-product emerged as a technological necessity. Accepting the argument of the appellant would amount to equating by-product and final product thereby obliterating the difference though recognised by the legislation itself. Significantly this interpretation by the Tribunal in Sterlite (supra) was not appealed against by the department. 27. We are also unable to agree with the submission of the learned Solicitor General that judgment in GAIL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
