9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 805X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f copper, their input as such in terms of the provisions of Rule 57F(1)(ii). While clearing such waste and scrap they paid duty @ Rs. 3,645/- per MT - the rate at which they had received such inputs and had taken the Modvat credit of duty thereon. They had also filed a classification list with the Superintendent of Central Excise for the waste and scrap of copper for the payment of duty at the rate of 15% ad valorem which was duly approved by the competent authority. Since, however, they had cleared the waste and scrap of copper during the period aforesaid by paying duty only at the specific rate of Rs. 3,645/- per MT. They were asked by the Superintendent of Central Excise to pay differential duty as per the classification list approved by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er on which excise duty had been paid and an amount equivalent to the credit taken on the input had been debited back in the RG 23A account or the current account. The Commissioner (Appeals) has further observed in his order that as the appellants had debited the Modvat credit, benefit of the said notification is available to them and further that the appellants contended that in view of the provisions of Rule 57F(1)(ii) the scrap and waste would be deemed to have been manufactured by them. It is stated that since the conditions prescribed in Notification 172/84 were fulfilled by the appellants, they were eligible to claim the benefit thereof irrespective of the fact whether the benefit of notification was claimed in classification list or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without carrying out any process of manufacture they have not charged to duty. It is stated that the availability of the exemption under Notification 172/84 was pleaded only as an alternative submission in the appeal before the lower appellate authority. We have carefully considered these submissions. As already stated above, the Commissioner (Appeals) had given the benefit of Notification 172/84 and allowed the refund claim of the respondents by dealing that the waste and scrap, subject matter of the consideration in these proceedings, were manufactured by them. We find from the record and also as per the contention of the learned consultant of the respondents that the refund claim since very beginning was made on the ground that the waste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
