2004 (12) TMI 565 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
- Whether the benefit of Notification No. 8/96-C.E. dated 23-7-96 is available to the goods imported by M/s. Lohia B Pvt. Ltd.

Analysis:
The appeal filed by M/s. Lohia B Pvt. Ltd. raised the issue of whether they were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 8/96-C.E. dated 23-7-96 for the goods they imported. Despite notices, no one appeared on behalf of the appellants during the hearing. The appellants imported Brass scrap and claimed exemption from Additional Customs duty under the said notification, which was denied by the Department. The Department argued that the exemption was only for Copper waste and scrap used within the factory for specific purposes. The appellants contended that the Notification did not specify that waste and scrap must be generated within the factory. However, the Tribunal held that the Notification clearly stated that the copper waste and scrap must be used within the factory of production. Since the imported scrap did not meet this requirement, the Tribunal rejected the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the Notification provided a nil rate of duty for copper waste and scrap used within the factory of production for specific manufacturing purposes. As the imported Brass scrap did not meet the criteria specified in the Notification, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's arguments. The Tribunal emphasized that the plain reading of the Notification indicated that the benefit was only applicable when the waste and scrap were used within the factory of production. Since the imported scrap did not fulfill this condition, the appeal was rejected by the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by M/s. Lohia B Pvt. Ltd. as they did not meet the requirements specified in Notification No. 8/96-C.E. dated 23-7-96. The Tribunal found that the imported Brass scrap did not qualify for the exemption from Additional Customs duty as it was not used within the factory of production as mandated by the Notification. The decision was made after considering the arguments presented by the Department and the absence of representation from the appellants during the proceedings.