TMI Blog1998 (6) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Notification No. 201/79-CE, dated 4-6-1979. In the course of manufacture of their final product, their input Leco was required to be crushed. In the process of crushing, fine particles of Leco emerge which according to the appeals is a waste product and it has no marketability and therefore no duty can be levied on it. Consequently they deducted this wastage from the input s stock account of Leco. It is this quantity of Leco powder thrown away as waste by the appellants that the demand of duty to the extent of wrong credit taken under Rule 56A or under Notification No. 201/79-CE has been made from the appellants. The amount so demanded is Rs. 32,730/- for the period 31-12-1983 to 28-11-1984. Show Cause Notice for demand of this amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore retrenching the credit to the extent of waste from the credit on inputs Leco is not at all called for, because the entire Leco has been utilised for the manufacture of Ferro Alloys as aforesaid. 4. On the plea of time bar, ld. Representative has submitted that lower authority has brushed aside that plea on the ground that the assessment was provisional, that is RT 12 Returns had not yet been finally assessed. If this is the position, submits the ld. Representative, no show cause notice could be issued until the assessments are finalised either in the Section 11A or under Rule 56A in view of the Calcutta High Court s judgment in the case of Nayak Paper Industries reported in 1991 (56) E.L.T. 31 Calcutta; (2) Union of India v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on does not arise. 9. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both the sides. We find sufficient force in the plea of the ld. Representative for the appellants that entire quantity of Leco has been used in the manufacture of final product Ferro Alloys inasmuch as crushing of inputs was necessary before its utilisation in the manufacture of the final products. It is also not disputed with any evidence on record by the Revenue that waste of Leco is marketable and therefore dutiable. The burden for adducing this evidence lies on the Revenue is now a well-settled proposition. Consequently the dutiability of waste has not been proved by the Revenue. Its clearance therefore in terms of Clause (iv) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 56A after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
