SUMMERVILLA TRADING AGENCIES Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri M.H. Patil, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants states that in the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeal) has held that the scrap cleared by the appellants cannot be termed either as "inputs as such" or "partially processed inputs". He states that the issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the Scrap arisen during the course of manufacture of the final product can be sent to job worker under Rule 57F(2) (up to 2.11.1993), Rule 57F(3) from 2.11.1993 to 1.3.1997 and Rule 57F(4) after 1.3.1997 to 31.3.2002 for getting it converted into granules for further use in the manufacture of their final products.

(2.) He further states that the appellants' case is squarely covered by the Larger Bench decision in the case of Wyeth Laboratories Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay .

(3.) The learned J.D.R. appearing for Revenue fairly concedes that the Larger Bench decision cited by the learned Counsel squarely covers the case of the appellants.