9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellate Tribunal dated 1st February, 2006 allowing the appeal of the respondent manufacturer in respect of duty levied on removal of MS Scrap on its clearance from the manufacturer's factory. 3. The substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission reads as under :- "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case particularly keeping in view of the order of Adjudicating Authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved otherwise. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has urged that there was no such admission about the leviability of the duty on removal of such scrap. It was pointed out that what has been stated in the reply that because in respect of certain items, the assessee was not aware until notice came to him that he was to pay duty on the sale of scrap of these items. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... modvat credit was availed either as inputs or as capital goods. MS Scrap is constituted in item No.1, 4 and 8 of the show cause notice. 7. The adjudicating authority did not accept the plea of the manufacturer in respect of MS Scrap and aluminum scrap. The other items in the show cause notice were dropped. 8. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the order of the adjudicating authority. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding material of the construction activity had been specifically stated in his reply submitted after the first reply pointing out the nature of scrap and fact has not been controverted. 12. In view of the above, the finding of the Tribunal that MS Scrap in question was part of building material in respect of which no modvat credit was availed. Hence, the MS Scrap too was non-dutiable as it did no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
