9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l as the issue lies in a short compass being covered by Tribunal judgment as rendered in the case of Castrol India Ltd., reported in 1998 (99) E.L.T. 234 (Tribunal). 2. The issue in all these appeals is as to whether duty can be demanded on empty drums, on which Modvat credit have already been utilised? The moot point which arises is as to whether empty drum is a scrap or a new product? In the show cause notice it was alleged that the appellants manufactured shell sand and shall moulds cores falling under sub-heading 6807.00 and 8480.10 respectively of CET Act, 1985. They were availing Modvat credit in res- pect of an input viz. resin which are used in drums/barrels. These resins are used in the manufacture of final product. The empty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present case is totally covered by the case law of Castrol India Ltd., wherein the WRB of Tribunal in paras 4 to 7 has held as follows :- 4. Reference to Rule 57F(4) does not seen very relevant to us. This rule provides in Clause (2) for the nature of utilisation of credit. The departmental representative contends rightly, in our view that even when Modvat credit is not taken if product is held to be the result of manufacture, duty liable to be paid on such waste unless it is exempted. For this to take place, two conditions have to be satisfied. The first is that there has been a process of manufacture and the second is that what emerges is scrap. 5. There is no case when the appellant empties the barrels of their contents and then ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e both sides in order to hear the arguments and then give a reasoned conclusion. The order does not show that this was done. 6. However even if we assume that manufacture takes place it cannot be said that waste arises. In terms of the Note 6(a) to Section XVI of the Tariff the barrels would be considered to be waste if terms of wear and tear they were no longer usable as barrels. There is no finding that this is the case. It is difficult on the face of it to accept that a barrel or drum ceases to be barrel as such only because it has been so used once and this is to ensure that the barrels were not and or could not, be so used again. 7. On both grounds therefore the appeal succeeds is ordered and impugned order set aside. Consequential ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
