TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 367
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The fact of the present case is that the appellant are manufacturer of excisable goods namely Auxiliaries and Chemicals falling under chapter 29,34,38 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant filed refund claim of Rs. 1,52,410/- with the office on 17/7/1997. The appellant had paid Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,52,410/- under rule 57 CC of Central Excise Rules 1944 @ 8% of value of goods cleared at NIL rate of the duty on which job work was carried out under Rule 57(3). The appellant in their own claim stated that they have not reversed the cenvat credit of Rs. 50,758/- in respect of their own raw material i.e. Ethylene Oxide used in the manufacture of IP 534(exempted product) and therefore had requested for refun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in light of Tribunal judgment in the caseof Max India Ltd. (Maxmet Division) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jalandhar [2006 (197) ELT 376 (Tri-Del)]. On the remand of the matter, the appellant made representation for finalizing their refund claim of Rs. 1,52,410/- before the adjudicating authority. Asstt. Commissioner vide the order-in-original passed denovo order bearing no. DP/Refund-1/18-1/0809 dated 29/7/08 wherein once again rejected the refund claim of Rs. 1,52,410/-holding that the judgment relied upon by the appellant in the case of Max India Ltd is not applicable in the present case. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who vide impugned order upheld order in-original dated 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le 57-CC required to pay 8% of the value of the exempted goods, therefore the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) rightly rejected the appeal of the appellant. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on following judgments; (a) Commissioner of C. Ex. Nagpur Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd.[2007(215) ELT 489(S.C.)] (b) Commissioner of C. Ex. Pune Vs. Hi-Mile Rubber Pvt Ltd.[2011(267) ELT 231(Tri. Mumbai)] (c) Commissioner of C. Ex. Thane-I Vs. Nicholas Piramal (India) Ltd[2009(244) ELT 321(Bom.)] (d) Syschem (India) Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Panchkula[2010(261) ELT 586(Tri- Del.)] 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. 6. I find that the fact is no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd clearing the same on payment of duty and also undertaking the job-work of metallising films on the films supplied by the principal manufacturer and after metallising the same were cleared without payment of duty to the principal manufacturer. The principal manufacturer further used these films in the manufacture of pouches which were cleared on payment of duty. Notification No. 214/86-C.E. provides the exemption from payment of Central Excise duty on the goods manufactured in a factory as a job-work which are further used in the manufacture of final products on which duty of excise is leviable. The appellants are working under this Notification regarding which the necessary declaration is filed by the principal manufacturer. The Revenue ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecision was urged before him and he has not dealt with it, merely saying that the provisions of rules are clear. The departmental representative is not able to say why the ratio of this decision should not apply. That ratio will have to be applied." 7. We find that that the provisions of the Rule 6 (3)(b) are similar to the provisions of earlier Rule 57CC of Cenvat Excise Rules and while interpreting the earlier rules, the Tribunal held that where the exempted final products are not sold, the manufacturer is not liable to pay 8% of the price charged by him under Rule 57CC of Cenvat Excise Rules. In view of the above decision of the Tribunal and the goods manufactured on job-work basis and were cleared under the Notification No. 214....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2.Counsel for the appellant relies upon the decision? of this Tribunal in Ballarpur Industries v. CCE - 2001 (138) E.L.T. 94 (T) = 2002 (48) R.L.T. 221. The departmental representative relies heavily on what the Commissioner has said. The ratio of the decision in Ballarpur Industries is that in cases where the exempted final product is not sold, the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 57CC will not apply because that cannot be given effect to; the rule requires the manufacturer to pay 8% of the price charged by him for the sale of such goods. Although this decision was not cited before the Commissioner, the specific point which forms the ratio of this decision was urged before him and he has not dealt with it, merely saying that the p....