9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (2) TMI 569 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Demand of duty on waste and scrap of iron & steels due to absence of exemption notification. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, involved the issue of the demand of duty on waste and scrap of iron & steels by M/s. Northern Railways Mechanical Works. The duty was demanded for the period from 1-3-1994 to 15-3-1995 as no exemption notification was in force during that time. The Appellant argued that the ferrous waste and scrap generated during the manufacture of railway wagons, falling under Heading 72.04 of the Central Excise Tariff, was sent for sale through auction to the Controller of Stores, Northern Railways. The Appellant contended that duty exemption was in place before March 1994 and after March 1995, and they should not be liable for duty during the interim period. They also highlighted that the materials generating the waste and scrap were already duty paid, and they believed in good faith that no duty was applicable to scrap from a railway workshop. The Tribunal examined the definition of metal waste and scrap under Note 8(a) of Section XVI of the Central Excise Tariff, which includes waste and scrap from the manufacture or mechanical working of metals. It was noted that the generated scrap during the manufacture of railway wagons fell under this definition and was chargeable to duty under Heading 72.04 of the Tariff. The Tribunal emphasized that Central Excise duty is payable as per the rates mentioned in the Schedule, and during the relevant period, no exemption was in place as the previous exemption notification had been rescinded. The duty exemption was reinstated only from 16-3-1995 onwards. Consequently, the duty demand on the Appellant was upheld. However, the Tribunal agreed with the Appellant's argument regarding the absence of penalty imposition, considering their genuine belief in the exemption from duty due to their status as a department of the Central Government. Therefore, the penalty imposed on the Appellant was set aside by the Tribunal.
|
