2016 (8) TMI 347 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - Clearance of waste and scrap - Availment of Cenvat credit without payment of duty - Demand confirmed by various authorities below on the ground that the waste and scrap has arisen from mechanical working of metal and hence, properly classifiable under Chapter Heading 7204.90 and therefore, liable to payment of duty. Held that - the confirmation of demand has been done by travelling beyond the grounds made in the show cause notice and hence cannot be upheld on account of violation of principle of natural justice. The appellant has contended that the waste and scrap has arisen during repair and maintenance work of the capital goods. Some portion of the scrap has also arisen on account of dismantling old and used machinery. It is also well settled that scrap arisen in such cases will not be liable to payment of excise duty as has been held by this Tribunal in many cases. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of provisions of Central Excise Rules regarding clearance of excisable goods.
2. Classification of waste and scrap under Central Excise Tariff.
3. Determination of duty liability on waste and scrap arising from mechanical working.
4. Consideration of Modvat/Cenvat Credit on machinery for payment of duty on waste and scrap.
5. Application of principle of natural justice in confirming demand based on different grounds than those in show cause notice.

Analysis:
1. The dispute in this case originated from a show cause notice alleging contravention of Central Excise Rules by clearing waste and scrap without payment of duty under cover of an invoice. The Original Authority confirmed the demand, stating that waste and scrap generated from mechanical working are dutiable goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed part of the demand, classifying the waste under the Central Excise Tariff. However, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the Commissioner (Appeals) due to lack of evidence regarding Modvat Credit availed by the appellant.

2. In the subsequent proceedings, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that Modvat/Cenvat Credit was not availed on certain materials, but upheld the dutiability of specific waste and scrap. The Tribunal observed that the confirmation of demand was based on grounds beyond those in the show cause notice, violating the principle of natural justice. The appellant argued that the waste and scrap arose during repair and maintenance work, which, as per established precedent, should not be liable to excise duty.

3. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that waste and scrap arising from repair and maintenance work of capital goods are not liable to excise duty. Citing previous cases, the Tribunal supported its decision, highlighting the consistent interpretation of the law in similar situations. The judgment underscores the importance of aligning demand confirmation with the grounds specified in the show cause notice to uphold principles of natural justice and fair adjudication.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the legal issues involved, the progression of the case through various authorities, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal.