TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (11) TMI 361
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - This appeal has been filed against the OIA No. 152/2001, dated 16-8-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad. There are two issues to be decided in this appeal. 2. Issue No. 1 : The appellants are the manufacturers of Filters and Filter elements availing SSI benefit under relevant notifications. They were sending CR Sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erred to in clause (i) is required to be returned to the factory of the manufacturer of final products if the excise duty payable on such waste is paid". 3. The Revenue contends that the 'excise duty payable' means payable by the appellant and not by the job worker. The appellants contend that CBEC, in its Circular No. 56/56/94-CX-8, dated 14-9-1994 has clarified that "where the goods are ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not correct and, therefore, we allow the appeal and set aside the demand. 6. Issue No 2 : The issue is whether the value of impregnated filter paper received from the job worker and cleared for captive consumption and to sister units, is includible in the aggregate value of the clearances of the appellants' unit who avail the benefit of SSI notification. The appellants send 'Base Filter Pap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e value of the inputs cleared as such under 57F(1)(ii) is not includible in the aggregate value of clearances of a small scale manufacturer. This has not been accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) as the impregnated filter paper cannot be considered as inputs removed as such and the above mentioned Board's Circular is not applicable. We find that the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) on this....