2012 (3) TMI 90 - HC - Central Excise

Demand - Time barred - Held that learned counsel for the Revenue has not been able to high-light any provision of law which may show that the scrap of iron and steel; or copper and brass or even plastic waste which is a packing material would be exigible items - Decided in favor of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Demand on waste of scrap of iron and steel arising from old machines.
3. Demand on waste of scrap of copper and brass from unused wires and cables.
4. Demand on plastic waste used as packing material.
5. Allegation of suppression of information in the show cause notice.
6. Legal infirmity in the Tribunal's order.
7. Exigibility of scrap of iron and steel, copper and brass, and plastic waste.

1. Appeal under Section 35 G:
The appeal was directed against the order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, where the respondent did not contest the demand on rubber scrap but challenged the demands on waste of scrap of iron and steel, copper and brass, and plastic waste.

2. Demand on waste of scrap of iron and steel:
The Tribunal found that the scrap of iron and steel arising from dismantling old machines was not an exigible item, especially since the respondent did not avail modvate credit on these capital goods. Citing precedent, the Tribunal held that such waste is not subject to duty.

3. Demand on waste of scrap of copper and brass:
Regarding the waste of scrap of copper and brass from unused wires and cables, the Tribunal relied on a previous judgment to rule that unserviceable pieces of wires and cables are not subject to duty, as they are not exigible goods.

4. Demand on plastic waste:
The Tribunal accepted the respondent's argument that plastic waste, used as packing material, was not an exigible item. This decision was supported by a Supreme Court judgment which clarified that packing material is not subject to duty.

5. Allegation of suppression of information:
The Tribunal noted that the show cause notice did not contain any allegations of suppression of information related to the clearance of waste and scrap. The notice only mentioned the suppression of information regarding paper waste for home consumption, which was unrelated to the demands in question.

6. Legal infirmity in the Tribunal's order:
The High Court found no legal infirmity in the Tribunal's order. The Revenue failed to highlight any legal provision making the scrap of iron and steel, copper and brass, or plastic waste exigible items. Additionally, the demand was deemed time-barred due to the absence of allegations of suppression of facts.

7. Exigibility of scrap of iron and steel, copper and brass, and plastic waste:
Ultimately, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the appeal as it did not raise any substantive question of law. The Court concurred with the Tribunal's findings that the demands on scrap of iron and steel, copper and brass, and plastic waste were not justified under the law.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved and the detailed reasoning provided by the High Court in addressing each of these issues.