1999 (4) TMI 155 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 53/88-C.E. regarding the availability of benefits to waste, paring, and scrap of plastics obtained during the manufacture of P.U. Foam Paddings.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved the interpretation of Notification No. 53/88-C.E. to determine if the benefit of the notification is applicable to waste, paring, and scrap of plastics arising during the manufacturing process of P.U. Foam Paddings. The Revenue argued that the waste arises after the stage where chemicals lose their identity and the appropriate duty has not been paid, thus the benefit of nil rate of duty cannot be extended. It was emphasized that notifications must be strictly interpreted, and the benefit cannot be allowed if the specified conditions are not met. Additionally, the existence of another notification, No. 54/88, providing a concessional rate of duty to waste of flexible polyurethane foam, was highlighted to avoid rendering it nugatory.

On the other hand, the Respondents contended that the waste arises from duty-paid goods during the manufacture of final products, making them eligible for the benefits under Notification No. 53/88. They referred to a previous Tribunal decision emphasizing the distinction between the scope of notifications 53/88 and 54/88, stating that the former covers waste of plastics while the latter is limited to waste of polyurethane foam. The argument was supported by citing precedents where similar benefits were extended to waste products.

The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and the relevant provisions of Notification No. 53/88. It was observed that the waste, paring, and scrap had indeed arisen from goods on which duty had already been paid, making the Respondents eligible for the benefits under the notification. The Tribunal also addressed the applicability of Notification No. 54/88, noting that when multiple options are available to an assessee, they can choose the option that is most beneficial to them. Referring to precedent, the Tribunal emphasized that each notification is independent, and the specific notification need not always take precedence over the more general one. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, affirming the availability of benefits under Notification No. 53/88 to the Respondents for waste, paring, and scrap of plastics in the manufacturing process of P.U. Foam Paddings.