9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 821X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve heading of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were working under production based control system of self removal procedure and were availing S.S.I. exemption benefit in terms of Notification No. 1/93 cit. 28.02.1993. 3. The aforesaid manufactured products including waste and scrap attracted 15% advalorem rate of duty of excise and accordingly the noticee filed classification list effective from 01.04.1995 and declaration effective from 01.05.1995 under Rule 173B and claimed slabwise concessional rates of duty i.e. 15% less 10% and 15% less 5% and 15% in terms of Notification ibid for S.S. Patta/Patti and Circles and full rate for waste and scrap i.e. adv. 4. During scrutiny of the returns, it was observed that the appellants had dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e duty had to be paid at the rate applicable on the waste scrape As Patta/Patti Circles and waste scrap were manufactured by the pointed out that both the show cause notices had been issued within the prescribed time limit. He also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asian Paints (I) Ltd. vs, Collector of C.Ex, Bombay - 2002 (142) ELT 522 (SC) and argued that the recovery of excise duty could be pursued by way of an appeal filed under Section 35E. 8. We find that the main issue to be decided is whether the appellants can exercise option in respect of one item manufactured by them and pay full duty while availing the concessional duty on the other item manufactured by them. Records show that M/s Mamta & Co. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... distinct products, one dutiable and other exempted, while is not the case. Waste and scrap have arisen in an integrated process of manufacture of patta/patti and scrap has arisen only as by product. Subsequent clearance therefore includes clearance of both patta/patti as well as the waste scrap. 9. The appellants also argued that they have filed the classification list, which has been approved by the department and hence any demand payable by them, should be prospective in nature. They also argued that both the demands are barred by time. We find that the department has not accepted the approval of classification list in question and the matter was under constant litigation by the department by way of the revision application before the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
