1999 (5) TMI 123 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of aluminium circles for exemption under Notification 180/88-C.E.

Classification of Goods:
The case involved the classification of aluminium circles under Chapter Heading 76.06 of the CETA 1985 for exemption under Notification 180/88-C.E. The appellant claimed exemption for circles with a specific thickness range, manufactured from old aluminium articles. The key dispute was whether the circles satisfied the conditions of the notification.

Interpretation of Notification 180/88-C.E.:
Notification 180/88-C.E. exempts goods from Central Excise duty if manufactured from duty-paid goods falling under Chapter 76. The dispute arose as the appellant used old aluminium articles not previously subjected to excise duty. The Assistant Collector initially denied the exemption, stating that only specific types of aluminium waste were exempt under the notification.

Lower Appellate Authority's Decision:
The lower appellate authority ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that goods charged at a nil rate of duty should be considered duty-paid. The authority emphasized that the notification deems all stocks of inputs and products as duty-paid unless clearly identifiable as non-duty paid, supporting the appellant's position.

Arguments and Analysis:
The Revenue appealed, arguing that certain aluminium scrap should not be considered duty-paid as per the notification's explanation. The Revenue highlighted that some scrap, like non-usable aluminium articles sold as scrap, did not attract duty. The appellant contended that such scrap should not be deemed duty-paid under the notification.

Judgment and Conclusion:
The Tribunal analyzed the notification's explanation, stating that all aluminium stocks and products should be deemed duty-paid unless proven otherwise by the Revenue. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the notification covered the appellant's case. The Tribunal concluded that the inference drawn by the Revenue did not provide evidence of the scrap being non-duty paid, upholding the lower appellate authority's decision in favor of the appellant.