1999 (11) TMI 538 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of broken glass bottles as scrap under Central Excise Tariff.
2. Duty liability on broken glass bottles during the process of filling aerated water.
3. Interpretation of relevant case laws regarding excisability of broken glass bottles.

Analysis:
1. The appeal dealt with the duty liability concerning glass bottles broken during the filling of aerated water. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) classified the broken glass bottles as scrap under sub-heading No. 7001.10 of the Central Excise Tariff.

2. The appellant argued that they were not manufacturing glass bottles but were bringing duty paid glass bottles for filling aerated water. They contended that no new product emerged from the breakages, thus no duty should be charged. The respondent referred to previous judgments to support the excisability of the waste.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the facts and previous case laws. They noted that the Calcutta High Court ruled that broken glass in the manufacturing process should not be considered excisable. In contrast, an earlier Tribunal decision classified scrap glass as excisable goods. The Tribunal held that the later Calcutta High Court decision should be followed.

4. The Tribunal reviewed the case law referenced by the respondent and found that they did not support the revenue's case. They highlighted a previous Tribunal decision where broken glass bottles were considered waste under the Modvat Rules, emphasizing that the waste arising during the manufacturing process should be dealt with as per the rules.

5. In another case, the Tribunal clarified that Rule 57F(4) applied to inputs undergoing processing, which was not the case for the broken glass bottles in question. Ultimately, the Tribunal sided with the appellant, disagreeing with the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowing the appeal based on the Calcutta High Court's decision.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved and the Tribunal's reasoning behind their decision, considering relevant legal principles and precedents.