9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. The Revenue has preferred this Appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. GS/1333/B1/93, date 17-2-1994 rejecting the appeal filed by the Department against the Order-in-Original No. V-(Tr) 37/K-II/70/92, dated 26-3-1992. 2. Shri H.K. Jain, ld. SDR, submitted that the Respondents M/s. Gareware Plastics Polyester Ltd. manufactured X-ray Films and availed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was clearly mentioned in first paragraph of the show cause notice that X-ray film waste was cleared without payment of duty and without following the procedure laid down under Rule 57F(4) and Rule 52A, 173B and 173C of the Central Excise Rules. The Collector (Appeals) has interpreted the show cause notice wrongly. He, further, mentioned that Notification No. 14/92 (Sl. No. l9) exempted waste, p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aste. He also mentioned that this fact is apparent from Annexure to the Notification where the amount of duty has been worked out in respect of 35% of waste involved in the input . He finally submitted that the correct Notification involved was Notification No. 53/88 and not 14/92; that the availment of Modvat credit does not make the inputs non dutiable. 4. We have considered the submissions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... maintainable on this count alone. We also observe that the nil rate of duty was available in respect of waste parings and scrap of plastics arises from goods on which duty has already been paid. It is not in dispute that the film out of which waste had arisen was duty paid. The availment of Modvat credit does not make the input as non-duty paid and thus the benefit of Notification No. 53/88 was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
