TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1136
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) and another impugned order dated 28.01.2013 passed by the Commissioner whereby duty penalty and interest are confirmed, details of all the three appeals are given hereinbelow:- Appeal No. Relevant Period Impugned Order Demand Details E/2761/2011 (1st Appeal) 2007-08 to 2008-09 25.08.2011 [Order-in-Appeal] Duty: Rs. 10,71,925/- Penalty: Rs. 10,71,925/- Interest E/2726/2011 (2nd Appeal) April 2009 to December 2009 25.08.2011 [Order-in-Appeal] Duty: Rs. 19,62,854/- Penalty: 19,62,854/- Interest E/57058/2013 (3rd Appeal) December, 2010 to October, 2011 28.01.2013 [Order-in-Original] Duty: Rs. 57,36,277/- Penalty: 57,36,277/- interest Since the issue involved in all the three appeal is identical therefore, all the three ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ack from job work would be an input not partially processed finished product. Therefore, the Appellant has contravened with the provisions of Rule 4. 6 and 8 of the Excise Rules inasmuch as they failed to discharge duty on the removal of brass cutting waste, b. The brass cutting waste sent on the job work challans are neither the inputs cleared as such nor inputs which have been partially processed. Therefore, such clearance appears to be considered as goods cleared without payment of appropriate duty which is liable to be recovered: c. Rule 4(5)(a) of the Credit Rules provides that the CENVAT credit shall be allowed even if any inputs or capital goods as such or after being partially processed are sent to a job worker for further pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitted that the brass scrap in the present case is nothing but semi-processed form of input which is used by the appellant for manufacturing final product. He further submitted that the appellant has followed the appropriate procedure while removing the brass scrap to the job worker as prescribed under the notification. Further, in compliance of the procedure under the notification, the appellant had given proper intimation to the Assistant Commissioner vide letter dated 03.07.2007. 8. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the issue involved in the present cases is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Larger Bench in the case of Wyeth Laboratories Ltd. cited (Supra). He further submitted that the said decision was upheld by the H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustries Vs. CCE [2005 (189) ELT 62 (Tri)] the tribunal while referring to the judgment in the case of Wyeth Laboratories Ltd cited (Supra) held that the entire purpose of settling down the disputed issue is defeated if the majority decision are not followed by the field formations. Hon'ble Tribunal had thus, set aside the order which was based on the minority view expressed in the Larger Bench's decision in Wyeth Laboratories Ltd. With regard to imposition of penalty. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that since no duty is payable in the present case, the demand of penalty is not sustainable and interest is also not demandable. 10. On the other hand, Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 11. After considering the submissions ....