1991 (10) TMI 131 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of broken pieces of glazed tiles.
2. Applicability of Rule 50 of the Central Excise Rules.
3. Legislative competence and excisability of waste and scrap.
4. Marketability and classification under different tariff items.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Broken Pieces of Glazed Tiles:
The respondents, manufacturers of glazed tiles, initially classified broken pieces of glazed tiles under TI 68. However, the Department issued a show cause notice for classifying the product under TI 23B. The Assistant Collector classified the product under TI 23B(3), which was later set aside by the Collector (Appeals), holding that broken glazed tiles were not excisable under Rule 50.

2. Applicability of Rule 50 of the Central Excise Rules:
The respondents argued that broken glazed tiles should be classified as "waste matter" under Rule 50 of the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in Modi Rubber Ltd., which stated that waste and scrap obtained in the course of manufacture are not goods and that there was no event of manufacture of waste or scrap. The Tribunal upheld that waste and scrap of glazed tiles are not excisable and are entitled to the benefit of Rule 50.

3. Legislative Competence and Excisability of Waste and Scrap:
The Tribunal examined the Supreme Court's decision in Khandelwal Metal and Engineering Works, which held that waste and scrap are by-products of the manufacturing process and can be taxed if produced in India. However, this judgment was specific to copper scrap under Item 26A(lb) and did not extend to other items like Item 68. The Tribunal also referred to the case of Aluminium Industries Ltd., where it was held that aluminium dross and skimmings are not excisable under Item 68.

4. Marketability and Classification under Different Tariff Items:
The Tribunal considered various judgments, including Hindustan Scientific Glass and Fancy Glassware Works Ltd., where broken glass was classified under TI 68. However, the Tribunal distinguished this case by noting that broken glass can be melted and re-cycled, unlike broken glazed tiles. The Tribunal also observed that broken glazed tiles are sold on a weight basis and not as prime material, indicating their marketability as waste material. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to classify them under TI 23A(3) or TI 68.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that broken glazed tiles are not excisable and are entitled to the benefit of Rule 50 of the Central Excise Rules. The appeals by the Department were rejected, and the order of the Collector (Appeals) was upheld. The Tribunal emphasized that the marketability and specific classification of waste and scrap must be considered, and in the absence of a specific entry for broken glazed tiles, they cannot be treated as excisable goods.