Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2005 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (1) TMI 471 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
- Waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount and penalty amount - Classification of mis-rolls as waste and scrap under Section 7204.90 Waiver of Pre-deposit: The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount and penalty amount in the second round of litigation after the matter was remanded. The appellant contended that the mis-rolls should be classified as waste and scrap, not as semi-finished goods under 7207.90. Despite the Commissioner's disagreement, the Tribunal, after considering the arguments and precedents cited by the appellant, found merit in classifying the item as waste and scrap under Section 7204.90. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the stay application, granting full waiver of pre-deposit and staying the recovery of the amounts. Classification of Mis-Rolls: The main issue revolved around the classification of mis-rolls as waste and scrap. The appellant argued that mis-rolls should not be considered as semi-finished goods falling under 7207.90 but rather as waste and scrap under Section 7204.90 since they need to be remelted and cannot be reused as semi-finished goods. The Commissioner disagreed with this classification. However, the Tribunal, upon hearing both sides, found in favor of the appellant, acknowledging that the mis-rolls should indeed be classified as waste and scrap under Section 7204.90. This decision was based on the fact that the mis-rolls required remelting and could not be reused as semi-finished goods. The Tribunal granted full waiver of pre-deposit and stayed the recovery of the amounts, recognizing the recurring liability and the complexity of the classification issue. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's request for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount and penalty amount, ruling in favor of classifying the mis-rolls as waste and scrap under Section 7204.90. The matter, which had undergone multiple rounds of litigation and remand orders, was scheduled for further hearing to address the recurring liability and the classification issue.
|