2016 (2) TMI 925 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - waste and scrap of metal cleared during January to September 2004 without payment of duty - Held that - it is found that in the order-in-original various types of scrap which are now being sought to be charged duty have been examined in detail before arriving at the conclusion that there is no manufacture or dutiable product in the present case. It is also found that the scrap arising out of repair and maintenance of plant and machinery; scrap arisen out of worn out capital goods and components cannot be considered as manufactured products, therefore not liable to Central Excise duty. - Decided against the Revenue

Summary

Issues:
- Duty liability on waste and scrap cleared without payment
- Classification of waste and scrap as manufactured products liable to Central Excise duty

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals - II), Jaipur, regarding the duty liability on waste and scrap cleared without payment by a company engaged in the manufacture of Cement and Clinker. The Revenue contended that all types of waste and scrap generated during the production of capital goods should be considered as manufactured products liable to Central Excise duty. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order, stating that waste and scrap arising from wear and tear of capital goods cannot be considered as products arising from manufacturing, and hence, no duty can be charged on such waste and scrap. The Commissioner relied on various Tribunal decisions to support this finding. The order-in-original had thoroughly examined various types of scrap to conclude that there was no manufacture or dutiable product in this case. The scrap arising from repair and maintenance of plant and machinery, as well as from worn-out capital goods and components, were deemed not to be manufactured products. Both the original Authority and the 1st Appellate Authority concurred on this, citing relevant case laws. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower Authorities' findings and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision that waste and scrap cleared by the company were not liable to Central Excise duty, as they did not qualify as manufactured products under the Central Excise Act. The judgment emphasized the distinction between waste and scrap arising from the production process and actual manufactured goods, highlighting that not all by-products or remnants automatically attract duty liability. The case underscored the importance of careful examination of the nature and origin of waste and scrap to determine their dutiability under the relevant laws and precedents.