9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the appellant. Thus, removal of such goods as scrap will not attract payment of central excise duty/ reversal of cenvat credit. with regard to the wooden scrap namely, doors, windows, iron rods etc., which have no relation with the manufacture of the final product and obviously there was no scope on the part of the appellant to avail the cenvat credit. Thus, duty liability cannot be fastened on removal of those goods as waste and scrap. With regard to plastic scrap, the Ld. Advocate states that the same were generated during the course of manufacture/ packing of the final product. Since, initial procurement of plastic were not input as such and were not generated during the course of manufacture of the final product, on removal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pective years. Since the appellant avails cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods used in or in relation to manufacture of the final product, the department proceeded against the appellant for recovery of the cenvat credit, treating the removal of miscellaneous waste and scrap as cenvatable goods. The SCN issued by the department was adjudicated vide order dated 12.03.2010, confirming the Central Excise duty demand of ₹ 2,36,693/- along with interest and also equal amount of penalty was imposed on the appellant. In appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the adjudged demand. Hence, the present appeal is before the Tribunal. 3. Sh. R. Krishnan, the Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the waste an s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vat credit has been taken by the appellant on initial procurement of those goods, and as such, reversal of credit is no required. 4. On the other hand, Sh. M. R. Sharma, the Ld. AR appearing for the revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. 5. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records. 6. I find that as regards the packing materials removed as waste and scrap by the appellant, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of West Coast Industrial Gases Ltd. (supra) have held that such waste cannot be treated as arisen out of any manufacturing process and no duty is required to be paid / cenvat credit to be reversed. Thus, I am of the view that duty demand on the packing material is li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its that the appellant had maintained adequate records, I am of the view that the matter should go back to the original authority for verification of records/ documents maintained by the appellant. If the appellant able to convince the original authority that no cenvat credit has been taken on the aluminum/ steel items removed as scrap, no demand shall be confirmed against the appellant on removal of those goods. 10. The lower authorities have invoked Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for imposition of penalty. Since, the information were gathered by the department from the balance sheet of the appellant, no malafide can be attributed, justifying imposition of penalty under Section 11AC ibid. Therefore, the penalty imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
