9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (2) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture electric lamp and miniature lamps. They also manufacture aluminium caps which are captively consumed in the manufacture of electric lamps and miniature lamps; that during the process of manufacture of lamps certain caps are wasted besides certain cap-shells are also wasted in the process of cap manufacture; that these wasted caps are dented, pressed, broken and unusable and are being sold in numbers for extracting aluminium and brass metals out of them; that on 31-5-1997 they had sought advice of the Suptd. Central Excise about the rate of excise duty leviable on these scrap caps; that as nothing was heard they informed the Suptd. under letter dated 9-6-1979 that they would be paying duty @ 8% under protest under tariff item 68 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sifiable under tariff item 68. Learned Sr. Advocate contended that the demand of central excise duty was completely time barred as the show cause notice was issued on 25-11-1981 whereas the last refund was sanctioned to them on 21-11-1980 and the cheque issued to them on 4-12-1980; that the appellants had made many querries with the department in writing about the duty on the impugned product and making the payment of duty under protest and the Asstt. Commissioner confirming that no duty was payable; that by no strech of imagination it can be said that there was any mis-statement on their part; that there was neither wilful mis-statement nor any suppression by them. 3. In respect of appeal No. 516/97-B the learned Sr. Counsel submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty under protest and subsequently the Assistant Commissioner also under letter dated 10-9-1980 informed them that no duty was payable; that in the light of these facts there could not be any suppression or mis-statement by them. He also relied upon the decision in the case of CCE, Bhubneswer v. Aluminium Industries Ltd., 1987 E.L.T. 748 (Tribunal) wherein it was held that waste and scrap are not finished goods to be classifiable under tariff item 68. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of Balaji Enterprises v. CCE, Madras, 1997 (92) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) wherein it was held that when waste and scrap was specifically taxed by amending tariff entry it cannot be said that such waste and scrap were dutiable prior to such amendment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
