9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e proper declaration under Rule 57G. The appellants were also availing deemed credit on the inputs i.e. lead alloy, copper scrap, copper ingots wire bars, and aluminium scrap purchased from the open market. They received two show cause notices proposing denial of deemed credit on the ground that the deemed credit on various types of metal scrap is not available to the appellants w.e.f. 11-9-1990. It was alleged that such scrap is not generated due to conscious manufacturing activities in the factory of production and are therefore clearly recognisable as non-duty paid. It is submitted that the deemed credit is permissible to the appellants in terms of the Board s Order F. No. 342/1/88-TRU, dated 12-7-1990 and 342/5/91-TRU, dated 7-7-1992 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contained therein. 5. Ld. Counsel cited Tribunal s order in the case of Machine Builders - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 576 (Tribunal) = 1996 (64) ECR 100 in support of his contentions. 6. I have considered the above submissions. I observe that it is already a well established and well settled point of law that goods purchased from the open market are deemed to be duty paid unless proved otherwise. Furthermore, the excise is chargeable at the time of clearance from the factory after manufacture and not after the goods have been used and thrown away or disposed of to kabaris. It is also noteworthy that it is virgin scrap which is considered as dutiable goods and not used material/articles which have been scrapped. As the scrap is of various types, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ears to have itself taken a different view later. The Machine Builder s case cited by the appellants does not help beyond a point inasmuch as the facts involved in that case are different. The order in that case mainly discusses inter alia the interpretation and implication of Govt. of India orders dated 7-4-1986, 2-5-1987 and 2-11-1987 whereas our attention in this connection has been drawn to different orders mentioned above. It is also well settled that if the department seeks to deny the benefit on the ground that the input were non-duty paid the burden is on the department. It is also evident that the appellants are correct in pointing out that the authorities below have not dealt with the relevant aspects and the order of the Collecto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
