9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (7) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 58,652.76 in respect of the aluminium waste and scrap cleared during the period Nov., 1992 and Jan., 1993 on the ground that the said clearance under Rule 57F(2) was not proper as the waste was neither input nor semi-finished goods eligible for clearance under Rule 57F(2). 2. The brief circumstances that led to the filing of the subject appeal are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium Roll Bond Panel of Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff and are also availing the facility of Modvat as per the rules. During the process, some waste and scrap of aluminium arises which they remove for conversion into aluminium sheets. They applied for permission for such removal under Rule 57F(2) on 14th Jan., 1992 and permis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inium waste and scrap for the reason that Rule 57F(2) would not cover the same. For the reasons discussed below, I am deciding the main appeal itself. 5. The Assistant Collector has observed in the impugned order that Rule 57F(2) provides that the inputs partially processed during the manufacture of final product could be removed outside the factory for specified purpose for repacking, refining etc. necessary for the manufacture of final product and could be returned to the factory of origin for further manufacture of final product. Since here the waste and scrap was generated during the manufacture of final product and was not purchased as input, it could not be treated as input. The Assistant Collector also wondered why the permissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant requested for permission for removal of aluminium waste and scrap under Rule 57F(2) for further processing together with a declaration in respect of the said waste and scrap and accordingly by letter C. No. IV(16)30-29/91/1415, dated 6th March, 1992, permission was granted under Rule 57F(2) by the Assistant Collector. It is also seen that by Trade Notice No. 8/93, dated 9-2-1993, the issue of removal of waste from a factory under Rule 57F(2) for conversion into ingots was re-examined and accordingly the permission granted earlier was withdrawn (vide Trade Notice No. 8/93, dated 9-2-1993.) Para 3 of this Trade Notice reads as follows :- "3. It has, therefore, been decided to withdraw the aforesaid Trade Notice of this offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase that the appellant have removed the waste and scrap after the permission was withdrawn i.e. subsequent to the date of Trade Notice as above. The Trade Notice No. 8/93 also does not say that it would apply retrospectively. In the circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable. 9. Though the appellant have not pleaded the legal point regarding jurisdiction, the impugned order also suffers from lack of jurisdiction as the Assistant Collector has no power to adjudicate a demand for over ₹ 50,000/- in terms of Board's instructions vide Circular No. 3/92-CX. 6 dated 14-5-1992 reported in 1992 (60) E.L.T. T3 = 1993 (46) ECR 47C, since this is not a case relating to approval of classification list/price list for which only the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
