9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 935X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion is purely the leftovers of the packing material or the worn out parts of the consumables used by the appellant in their premises for various activities as different from manufacture. This particular observation is sufficient to hold that even Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 will not be applicable to the scrap in question even the Explanation to Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 does not deem non-manufactured goods as exempted goods as have been defined under Rule 2(d) of CCR, 2004. Even the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS WEST COAST INDUSTRIAL GASES LTD. [ 2003 (4) TMI 110 - SUPREME COURT] has held that no duty can be demanded on the material which is used for packing of the imports on which credit has been taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as also proposed to be recovered along with the interest and the proportionate penalties. The said proposal was confirmed by Order-in-Original No.19/IND dated 06.10.2020. The appeal there against was filed and has been partly allowed vide Order-in-Appeal No.26/2021-22 dated 29.06.2021. The availment of CENVAT credit for the service tax paid by their corporate office during the impugned period as well as the availment of CENVAT credit of service tax on import services was held to have been available with the appellants. Accordingly, the confirmation of demand thereof ₹ 2473027/- (1983054/- + 489973/-) was dropped. However, the demand of ₹ 4975372/- has still been confirmed as a difference in amount of scrap sale as shown in the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bombay in the case of Hindalco Industries Limited Vs UOI, 2014 (12) TMI 657 has also been relied upon to emphasis that mere coverage of a particular item in its relevant tariff entry cannot be readily constructed to have any deeming effect in relation to the process of manufacture as contemplated by Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act unless specifically mentioned in the section or the Chapter note. The decision of this Tribunal also in the case of RSPL Ltd. Vs CCE, Ujjain reported 2021 (7) TMI 197 has been relied upon. Finally submitting that the case is squarely covered under CBIC Circular No.721/37/2003/CE dated 06.06.2003, learned Counsel for the appellant has prayed for the demand by Commissioner (Appeals) on these non-excisable scrap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty: a. Spent Oil with drum (Hazardous waste) b. Corrugated box scrap c. Wooden box scrap d. Waste material (Kachara) e. Empty drum of plastic f. M.S. Scrap of structural steel g. M.S. Empty drum. h. Plastic Scrap i. Broken asbestos sheets j. Grinding wheel scrap of consumed grinding wheel. k. Damaged and broken plastic crates. l. M.S. Scrapped Panel. m. Scrapped Plastic Crabay. n. M.S. Scrap (Mix Light + Heavy) Pg. No.184, 213, 228, 234, 249, 254, 266, 296, 294. o. Mix plastic scrap. p. Plastic bin crate scrap. 7. The very perusal of the nature of the above mentioned scrap, makes it clear that none of the above appears to have been produced by any deliberate treatment, labour or manipulat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. Therefore, both on authority and on principle, for being excisable to excise duty, goods must satisfy the test of being produced or manufactured in India in addition of its marketability. In our opinion, the charging Section 3 of the Act comes into play only when the goods are excisable goods under Section 2(d) of the Act falling under any of the tariff entry in the Schedule to the Tariff Act and are manufactured goods in the terms of Section 2(f) of the Act. Therefore, the conditions contemplated under Section 2(d) and Section 2(f) has to be satisfied conjunctively in order to entail imposition of excise duty under section 3 of the Act. 9. The manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) includes any process incidental or ancillary to the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s raw material. The scrap in question is purely the leftovers of the packing material or the worn out parts of the consumables used by the appellant in their premises for various activities as different from manufacture. This particular observation is sufficient to hold that even Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 will not be applicable to the scrap in question even the Explanation to Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 does not deem non-manufactured goods as exempted goods as have been defined under Rule 2(d) of CCR, 2004. I draw my support from the decision of this Tribunal in Keccha Sugar Company Ltd as has been reported as 2019-TIOL-143 Delhi. The said decision has subsequently been relied upon by this Tribunal in the case of M/s RSPL Ltd (supra). 11. Even the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
