2019 (1) TMI 1157

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....11 to December 2011 and that the details of said clearance has also not been shown in the ER Returns filed by them. Department, therefore issued a SCN No.889 dated 18.04.2013 proposing the recovery of the Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 22,756/- alongwith the interest at appropriate rate and the proportionate penalties. The Assistant Commissioner vide the order in Original No.05 dated 08.11.2013 has confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 4,550/-, however, has dropped recovery of the duty amounting to Rs. 18,206/-. The interest and penalty for the same amount of Rs. 4,550/- was also confirmed. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the Order under challenge i.e. the Order-in-Appeal No....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2 conditions i.e. of manufacture and marketability. Though fly-ash has admittedly been sold by the appellant, thus, fulfilling one condition of marketability but it does not qualify the definition of manufacture. 5. The Delhi Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Rama Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh reported in 2004 (178) E.L.T. 720 (Tri. - Del.) held that by-product consciously used in separate manufacturing process to produce exempted goods - HELD : Inputs used in process wherein by-product emerged could not be said to be used both in exempted and dutiable products and credit of duty cannot be demanded on basis of 8% of price of exempted goods under Rule 57CC of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 - ....