9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supdt. (AR) for the respondent ORDER Per : Raju This appeal has been filed by Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. against demand of duty and imposition of penalty for clearance of scrap of glass bottle without payment of duty. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellants argued that they are engaged in the manufacture of aerated drinks and for that purpose they use glass bottles as inputs. During the manufacturing process the glass bottles sometime break and as a result scrap in the shape of broken glass bottle is generated. She pointed out that in identical case for the earlier period vide Order-in-Appeal no.AT/375 376/M-II/2005 dated 18.07.2005, the Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the demand in identical circumstances. She furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government may from time to time by order specify for the purpose for being used in the manufacture of the class or categories of goods as may be specified in the said order, subject to the procedure under Chapter X being followed; or (c) Be destroyed in the presence of proper officer on the application by the manufacturer, and if found unfit for further use, or not worth the duty payable thereon, the duty payable thereon being remitted. Provided that such waste may be destroyed by the manufacturer governed by Chapter VIIA after informing the proper officer in writing regarding the quantity of such waste and the date on which he proposes to destroy at least seven days in advance and after observing all such conditions as may be pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... include that waste which would arise on account of inputs, in this case glass bottles, being used at various stages of manufacture. Sub-clause (a) of clause (5) introduces a fiction by clearly stating in so many words that such waste is deemed as having been manufactured in the factory. Therefore, merely because the appellant was not manufacturer of the glass bottles which generated the waste could not be a reason which would enable the appellant to remove the said waste without payment of duty contrary to the provisions of Rule 57F(5)(a). The appellant having done exactly the same has correctly been found to have evaded the payment of duty to that extent. 6. It is seen that there is no provision similar to Rule 57F(5) in the Cenvat C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
