9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 and a penalty of the like amount was imposed under Rule 173Q read with Section 11AC and interest was also directed to be paid under Section 11AB of the said Act. 2. The matter was called out for final hearing on 29-9-2005. No one appeared for the respondent. After the authorised representative of the department for the appellant Commissioner completed his arguments, the matter was kept in the second sitting to enable the authorised representative of the respondent to appear. However, no one was present through out the day for the respondent and the matter was, therefore, kept today to give a further opportunity to the respondents, to argue the matter. Even today, no one appeared for the respondent. The learned authorised representative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled before 5-12-1997. The applicability of the extended period of demand was, therefore, held to be justified. The adjudicating authority further held that the scrap generated as outlined in the reply of the respondent would show that it was generated during the course of manufacture and Rule 57F(18) was clearly attracted. The adjudicating authority rejected the contention of the respondent that this case was covered by the ratio of the decision of the Delhi High Court in Modi Rubber Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1987 (29) E.L.T. 502. It was observed by the adjudicating authority that in Modi Rubber case, it was held that waste and scrap specifically covered by the Central Excise Tariff shall be excisable. It was held that waste and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the approved premises any non-excisable goods produced in such premises, or any intermediate or residual product except waste matter. It was observed that so far as waste matter was concerned, it had been treated as a non-excisable product with no restrictions on its removal. The High Court observed that no amendment was made even after the introduction of Tariff Item No. 68 w.e.f. 1-3-1975 and the waste matter was still treated as non-excisable in Rule 50. It is clear from paragraph 4 of the judgment that the quantity of processed waste/scrap was declared by that assessee on 5-1-1982 i.e. when the Modvat provisions were not in existence. This aspect, however, has been overlooked by the Commissioner (Appeals) who has not cared to cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
