2003 (4) TMI 473 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Common issue in five appeals of Revenue regarding exclusion of waste and scrap value from aggregate value limit for exemption under Notifications.

Analysis:
In these appeals, the key issue revolved around the treatment of waste and scrap generated by a SSI Unit operating under specific Notifications. The unit was engaged in manufacturing excisable goods under two capacities: first, clearing goods with full exemption under one Notification, and second, working as job workers for principal manufacturers under a different Notification. The dispute arose when the unit excluded the value of waste and scrap from the computation of the aggregate value limit for exemption under one Notification, leading to show cause notices by the department. The original authority upheld the department's view, but the first appellate authority reversed it, prompting the Revenue to appeal to the Tribunal.

During the proceedings, the Revenue argued that the waste and scrap value should be included in the aggregate value limit for exemption, citing a precedent by the Tribunal's Larger Bench. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the waste and scrap, being specified goods under the relevant Notification, should be excluded from the computation of the aggregate value. They relied on earlier Tribunal decisions supporting their stance and emphasized the nature of the waste and scrap generated in their factory. The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments and case law cited, ultimately reaching a decision on the treatment of waste and scrap under the Notifications.

The Tribunal clarified that waste and scrap generated in the process of manufacturing goods cleared under the first Notification were to be included in the aggregate value limit for exemption, as they were eligible for exemption under that Notification. However, waste and scrap generated in the process of manufacturing goods cleared under the second Notification, which allowed clearance on payment of duty, were not to be included in the computation of the aggregate value limit. The Tribunal directed the original authority to re-determine the duty liability, segregating the clearances of waste and scrap from the second category for exclusion from the aggregate value limit. It differentiated the case from previous decisions related to a different Notification with a separate maximum limit for clearances under specific tariff headings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeals by modifying the order to exclude the value of waste and scrap from the second category from the aggregate value limit calculation. The original authority was directed to re-determine the duty liability after segregating the clearances of waste and scrap generated under the second Notification. The respondents were granted a reasonable opportunity to present their case during the re-quantification process.