Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 520 - AT - Central ExciseLiability to pay duty on clearance of structural scrap - duty demand alleging suppression of facts - Held that:- Scrap arising out of working on the structural/steel procured by the appellant assessee for construction/fabrication of refinery. The said scrap cannot be considered as arising during the course of manufacturing activity within the factory premises of the appellant. Appellant was not engaged in the manufacturing of iron and steel, in order to hold that the scrap generated would be liable to duty. This view is fortified by the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Zuari Cement Ltd (2006 (10) TMI 342 - CESTAT, BANGALORE ), Apollo Tyres Ltd (2004 (9) TMI 548 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI ) and Hindalco Industries Ltd (2001 (12) TMI 120 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI ). There is no dispute as to the fact that the said waste and scrap which is generated, as indicated herein above is generated during the fabrication of the refinery in the factory premises of the appellant. In our considered view this kind of waste and scrap as indicated hereinabove cannot be dutiable in the hands of appellant as waste and scrap arising out of the manufacturing activity.- Decided in favour of assessee Clearance of waste and scrap of inputs and capital goods, rejected/damaged inputs and capital goods - reversal of CENVAT credit - Held that:- As seen from the reproduced specimen list that the said items which are cleared by the appellant are scraps arising during the course of manufacturing, replacement, repair or reconditioning of the various machineries, pipes, fittings etc. in the refinery. The finding recorded by the adjudicating authority is that the said items are inputs as such, seems to be mis-construed inasmuch as the description itself indicates that the said items are nothing but scrap or damaged goods which cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered as clearance of inputs or capital goods as such. When there is no clearance of inputs or capital goods as such, question of reversal of CENVAT credit availed on such items does not arise. See Grasim Industries Ltd. (2011 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ) - Decided in favour of assessee Clearance of the inputs as such - Held that:- As seen from the records that the appellant had cleared various inputs without payment of duty. He has admitted and deposited partly some amount for the clearance of inputs as such. In view of the foregoing we are of the considered view that appellant has not made out any case in respect of the allegation at this Pointand demand of the duty on the said point is liable to be upheld along with interest. - Decided against assessee Invoking extended period of limitation - Held that:- We do agree with the learned counsel for the appellant assessee that the appellant being a Public Sector Undertaking could not have had any malafide intention for non-payment of duty liability if any, on various scrap generated in their factory premises, more so when all the removals have been recorded in the books maintained by them - Decided in favour of assessee
|