2016 (9) TMI 1234

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Advocate - For Appellant Mr. G.R. Singh, DR - For Respondent ORDER The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in manufacture of cement and clinker falling under Chapter Heading No.2523 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.  During the period October, 2006 to June, 2007, the appellant had sold waste and scrap of various miscellaneous items arisen during the course o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ction Note 8(a) of Section XV of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.  To support his such stand, he relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2011 (273) ELT 10 (SC)].  He further submits that as a matter of practice, the appellant never takes any Cenvat credit on the iron and steel goods classified under Chapter 72/73 of C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nsaction value, irrespective of the fact, whether the credit has been taken on the initially procured capital goods or not.  Thus, since the capital goods were removed from the factory without payment of duty, confirmation of duty demand is justified and is in conformity with the statutory provisions. 4.  We have heard both sides and perused the records.  We find that so far as t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by Section 2(f) of the Act, unless expressly mentioned in the said Section Note." 5.      Further, this Tribunal in the case of the appellant itself vide its Final Order No.53712/2015, dated 02.12.2015 in identical set of facts, has set  aside the demand confirmed in the adjudication/ appellate order. 6.  In view of the settled principles of law, we are no....