2014 (4) TMI 371

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellant was engaged in the manufacture of plywood during the material period and that saw dust emerged in the course of the process. The appellant sold saw dust without payment of duty of excise. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that they were not required to pay duty on saw dust which was chargeable to 'nil' rate of duty during the period of dispute (10/05/2008 to 31/07/2010). The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ule 6(3)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and consequently the demand cannot be sustained. Per contra, the learned Superintendent (AR) submits that, as per the amendment of the definition of "excisable goods" (Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act) by the Finance Act, 2008 with effect from 10/05/2008, saw dust generated in the course of manufacture of plywood in the appellant's factory also be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t can be considered to be a "manufactured product". It is not the case of the Revenue that the appellant had obtained registration from the Department for the manufacture of saw dust. Undisputedly, the appellant is a manufacturer of plywood. It is not in dispute that saw dust was generated as a waste during the course of manufacture of the excisable product viz. plywood. Saw dust was not conscious....