TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Member (T) Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.B. Tiwari, Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : A.K. Srivastava, Member (T)]. - The above appeal arises out of Order-in-Appeal No. RJB/174/M-II/2001 dated 30-6-2001 of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II. By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has sustained the demand of Rs. 13,12,198/- against the Appellants for the removal of scrap during the period from 1-12-1994 to 31-8-1998 and the imposition of penalty of an equal amount. 2. The Appellants are engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapters 83, 84 and 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 at their what is calle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have a Department known as Powai Central Stores (PCS). Prior to 1-4-1999, all the scrap generated either out of the duty paid inputs or capital goods by the respective units, was being cleared by the said PCS on payment of appropriate excise duty after filing necessary classification list/declaration by the said PCS from time to time. 7. The Appellants in their classification list/declaration filed from time to time in Part-III thereof specifically declared the waste and scrap generated out of the non-modvat claimed raw materials and obsolete/damaged/bought-out components/sub-assemblies/other goods on which set off/modvat is not claimed. 8. In furtherance of the audit objection dated 5-11-1998 and 6-11-1998, the Appellants by their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while issuing the show cause notice took into account the non-modvatable inputs and the initial demand of Rs. 20,00,000/- is reduced to Rs. 13.12 lakhs. He further held that the Appellants did not produce any supporting documents/records regarding the non-availment of the Modvat on the bought-out items out of which the above scrap is supposed to have arisen. He further held that the Appellants did not intimate the Department regarding the clearance of such scrap under separate series of invoices and did not reflect the said fact in the monthly returns. He further held that the Appellants are wantonly suppressing the material fact from the Department in order to evade duty. 11. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), dismissed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on behalf of the Revenue, reiterated the findings of the authorities below and contended that the Appellants did not declare the removal of the said scrap in the monthly returns and in view thereof it is not possible for the authorities below to examine the veracity of the claim of the Appellants. 16. Having considered the submissions of both the sides, we are inclined to accept the contention of the Appellants that no Central Excise duty is payable on the scrap generated out of the fencing materials, jallis, box channels, beams, structural material and broken and damaged angles etc. in the light of the cited orders of the Tribunal, viz. : (i) Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad , reported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
