2005 (9) TMI 158

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case the demand of duty was confirmed on the ground that appellant had cleared the scrap of capital goods without payment of duty. 3. The contention of the appellant is that the demand is for the period June, 2000 to May, 2001. Prior to 1-4-2000, the Rule 57S(C) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 provides the levy of duty on scrap of capital .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Excise Rules provides payment of duty by the manufacturer. The capital goods were removed as such. The contention is that as the scrap relates to the capital goods, therefore, they are liable to pay duty. 5. In this case the demand is for the period of Jun, 2000 to May, 2001 and there is no provision under the Act or Rules which provides payment of duty in respect of the scrap of capital goods. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X