2017 (1) TMI 1182

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nience, the facts of the case from appeal No. E/22156/2014 is taken. The details of the appeals are as under: Appeal No. Period Demand E/21056/2014 March to October 2010 Rs.1,75,083/- E/22156/2014 March 2011 to March 2012 Rs.1,33,977/- E/1789/2012 May 2008 to February 2010 Rs.7,01,116/-   2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pig iron, kull granulated slag and ungranulated slag falling under Chapter Subheading 72011000, 72041000 and 26180000 and 26190090 respectively of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It was noticed that they had manufactured and cleared 4128.66 MT of ungranulated slag valued at Rs. 26,79,552/- during the period from March 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. reported in 2014-TIOL-55-SC wherein it was held that when the inputs are used for the manufacture of intended final product, it would be impossible to maintain separate records for unintended byproducts used. The mischief of recovery of 8% under Rule 57CC on exempted goods which arise out of byproduct was held to be not attracted. The demand of an amount of money under Rule 6(3) which is pari materia under provision to Section 57CC is untenable in law. Learned counsel further submitted that by following the Hon'ble Supreme Court this Tribunal in the case of Hariyana Steel and Power vs. CCE reported in 2015 (325) ELT 400 has also followed the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision and has h....