9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ho confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 4,33,975/- with penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the respondents in respect of waste and scrap cleared by them during the period April to December, 2001. Whereas the second Appeal No. E/2122/2004-B has been preferred by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 16-1-2004 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority, who disallowed the claim of the respondents in their classification declaration, regarding benefit of Notification No. 89/95-C.E. dated 18-5-95 with a further direction to pay duty @ of 16% Ad valorem on the waste and scrap. 2. The issue in both the appeals thus centres around the question as to whether during the period in dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng excisable goods also when the waste and scrap, arose from the manufacture of exempted goods in that factory and as such at the time of clearance of that waste and scrap they could not claim benefit of the above notification for payment of duty thereon. The contention of the counsel that the respondents stopped manufacturing excisable goods later on and filed classification declaration which was prospective claiming exemption from payment of duty in respect of waste and scrap and as such benefit of the notification could not be denied to them, cannot be accepted for the reasons detailed above. The waste and scrap of the exempted goods had been cleared by the respondents from a factory in which excisable goods also were manufactured. The o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of duty on waste and scrap, an assessee in future must not manufacture dutiable goods. But such is not the position in the instant case. 7. In the light of discussion made above, the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the benefit of above said notification and thereby setting aside the duty demand against the respondents, cannot be legally sustained and are set aside. The order-in-original are restored. However, the order-in-original dated 31-10-2002 imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/- while confirming the duty demand, is modified by setting aside the penalty as the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, did not warrant the imposition of any penalty. Both the appeals of the Revenue accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
