9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (11) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me could not be allowed clearance free of duty in the case of scrap generated in the factory out of the inputs in respect of which Modvat Credit had been taken, and that the same could be cleared either on payment of duty or it be destroyed. Duty was demanded in respect of Aluminium scrap cleared for the period between 20-1-1988 and 20-7-1988. The learned Collector (Appeals) took note of the fact that trade notice had been issued by the Hyderabad Collectorate bearing No. 94/89 dated 18-5-1989 under which it has been clarified that Aluminium scrap as in the case of the Respondents can be allowed to be removed without payment of duty under Rule 57F(2) and he had held that in view of this trade notice, the demand was not enforceable. 2. Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow: Any waste arising from the processing of inputs in respect of which credit has been taken may - (a) be removed on payment of duty as if such waste is manufactured in me factory; or (b) be removed without payment of duty, where it belongs to such class or category of waste as the Central Government may from time to time by order specify for the purpose for being used in the manufacture of the class or categories of goods as may be specified in the said order, subjected to the procedure under Chapter X being followed; or (c) be destroyed in the presence of proper officer on the application by the manufacturer, and if found unfit for further use or not worth the duty payable thereon, the duty payable thereon being remitted. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed interpretation of sub-rule (b) can be given. However, in respect of brass and zinc no such trade notice or order has been issued and therefore, in terms of Rule 57F(4) the scrap has to suffer duty before it can be cleared out of the factory . Following the ratio of our above decision, we hold that the Collector (Appeals) was in error in allowing the Respondent s appeal and we hold that duty has been correctly demanded from the respondents. We, therefore, allow the appeal of the Revenue. 6. [Order per : S. Kalyanam, Member (J)]. - While agreeing with my learned brother that the impugned order is not sustainable in law, I should like to add the following. 7. The respondent, who was the appellant before the Collector of Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
