9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 44.90 of the Tariff; that during the course of manufacture of the insulated wires and cables, waste and scrap arises which is non-marketable as wires and scrap; that the Assistant Commissioner has, under the Adjudication Order No. 111/99, dated 2-9-99 classified the end cutting of PVC wires and cables under sub-heading 7404.90 and long cut pieces under sub-heading 8544.90 of the Tariff and confirmed the demand of duty on the ground that the impugned goods are sold to various Metal traders and in terms of Note 5 to Section XV of the Tariff, the principle of predominance by weight would apply; that on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order, agreed with the findings in the Adjudication Order; that, however, the Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18, was in the form of a mass of metal and insulating compound which is not marketable as cables; that this is evident from the submissions made by M/s. Finolex Cables in their appeal memorandum reproduced in Para 5 of the Tribunal s decision (Pages 423-24). The learned SDR contended that in the present matter there is no unserviceable mass as apparent from the samples shown by the learned Consultant for the Appellants; that similar observation was made by the Tribunal in another case of Finolex Cables Ltd. v. CCE, Pune - 1998 (100) E.L.T. 517 (Tribunal) (Para 5). Finally she submitted that what is being sold by the Appellant is the metal content which falls under Heading 74.04 of the Tariff being Copper waste and scrap. She relied upon t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich have been confirmed by the Apex Court that waste and scrap of wires and cables is not excisable goods. Further, in Finolex Cables case reported in 1998 (100) E.L.T. 517, the learned DR had contended as under :- .....the Tribunal decision in the appellants case was limited to whether the waste and scrap is classifiable under Heading 85.44 only and it was held in the negative in the absence of specific entry thereunder for scrap. It did not address itself to the question of classification of the waste and scrap on the basis of the metal contents as such waste and scrap under Chapters 74 and 76 of CETA relevant for such metals in which there are headings specifically covering scrap and waste. Ld DR also relied upon Interpretative Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
