9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. The appellant, at the relevant time, was engaged in coating with plastic pipes imported by a consortium which had been engaged by the Gas Authority of India Ltd (GAIL for short) for laying pipes for the Hazira Bijapur Jagdishpur Pipeline Project. The appellant was supplied the poles imported by GAIL and carried out the process ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passing of the order impugned in this appeal by the Collector in which he has demanded duty from GAIL and imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000/- on the appellant under Section 112 of the act. 2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We have read the appeal memorandum and other papers and heard the departmental representative. 3. The Collector accepts that, out of the goods seiz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roval for 100% EOU. The Collector has concluded that this is not such scrap arising in the course of manufacture of the finished goods. It is true that the waste material did not arise in the course of manufacture in the sense that it was not generated during any of the processes involving coating of the pipes with the plastic. It is not disputed that it was anything other than raw material. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were waste. The contention by the appellant, that in view of the specification between it and the consortium, plastic contained in the sweeping could not be used could not be rebutted by the departmental representative. It is also to be noted that the goods were cleared from the appellant s factory not to a buyer of plastic, but to a dealer in waste material. It was also noted that these goods wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
