9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without declaring the correct assessable value thereof, at Nil rate of duty. On the basis that waste/scrap in question was covered by CET sub-heading 3915.90 attracting effective rate of 30% adv. duty by virtue of Notification No. 15/94, dated 1-3-1994, two show cause notices proposing recovery of Rs. 14,357/- and Rs. 35,903.90 were issued and adjudicated by the Asstt. Commissioner who continued the demands and also imposed penalties of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- respectively. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demands confirmed and the penalties holding that the waste/scrap arising during the course of manufacture of X-ray film and photographic paper are outside the purview of Central Excise Tariff and hence not dutiable. Hence this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecifically provided for in the Tariff are not excisable goods. Therefore, the lower Appellate Authority has correctly held that the item in question is not covered by any entry in the CET and hence not excisable. 3. In the light of the above discussion, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. Sd/- (Jyoti Balasundaram) Member (J) Dated : 17-7-2003 4. [Contra per : C. Satapathy, Member (T)]. - I have carefully gone through the order recorded by my learned Sister. I find that the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kamath Packaging (supra) was rendered in the context of the Old Central Excise Tariff. The structure of the New Central Excise Tariff is quite different from the structure of Old Central Excise T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icial) OR Whether the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) requires to be set aside, as proposed by Member (Technical). Sd/- (C. Satapathy) Member (T) Dated : 25-8-2003 Sd/- (Jyoti Balasundaram) Member (J) Dated : 25-12-2003 [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. The question as has been referred to me is whether the waste of photographic film having base of polyester is to be classifiable under Chapter 39 as waste of plastic or is to be held non-excisable on account of no heading in the Tariff to cover it. 7. I heard both the sides. 8. It is with greatest respect not possible for me to subscribe to the view expressed by the Member (Technical) that it is common knowledge that all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em of Nomenclature. They provide that waste of film is not be classified in Chapter 37 but say, Photographic waste and scrap containing precious metal compounds of all kinds used principally for the recovery of precious metal is classified in heading 71.12. Other photographic or cinematographic waste and scrap is classified according to constituent material (e.g. if of plastics, Heading 39.15, if of paper, Heading 47.07). 10. On being shown these notes, counsel for the appellant has no answer. The record does not show that the waste is used for the recovery of precious metals. Therefore, the waste will be classified, based upon the constituent material, in Heading 39. 1 5. 11. The papers may be returned to the referring bench. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
