9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The severe temperature conditions in the kiln necessitate protection of the kiln shell against heat, which is achieved by lining the inner sides of the kiln with refractory fire bricks. This refractory lining has the further advantage of preventing excessive heat loss to the surroundings by virtue of its insulating characteristics. The fire bricks would lose their resistance over a period of 3 to 4 months of constant use whereafter they would require to be removed for fresh lining of the kiln-shell with new fire bricks. During the period March, 1995 to September, 1997, the appellants removed the used fire bricks as waste and scrap from their Rewa Plant without payment of duty. The department issued 4 show cause notices proposing to recover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces wherein there was no proposal to demand/ recover duty of excise in terms of Rule 57-S(2)(c). Ld. Counsel submits that the fire bricks were not removed as such but removed as waste and scrap in broken/powdered form which would not attract the provisions of Rule 57-S(2)(b). Counsel submits that waste and scrap of fire bricks are not goods specified under any Heading of the Central Excise Tariff and, therefore, no duty of excise is leviable on the item. He submits that waste and scrap are liable to duty only if the same arise out of a process of manufacture and are specified under the Schedule to the CETA. The Counsel relies on the following and other decisions in support of his submission :- (1) CCE v. Somany Pilkingtons Pvt. Ltd. [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quarter of a year of use or fraction thereof, from the date of availing credit under Rule 57Q; and (c) Where capital goods are sold as waste and scrap, the manufacturer shall pay the duty leviable on such waste and scrap. The proposal in the show cause notices was based on Clause (b) above. The lower appellate authority has set aside that proposal but directed the appellants to pay duty on the goods under Chapter Heading 69.01 of the CETA. That authority treated the goods as waste and scrap covered by Clause (c) above. The department had no case in its show cause notices that the appellants had cleared waste and scrap of fire bricks during the relevant periods. The department did not demand duty on any waste and scrap of fire bri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
