TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 31/2005 dated 29-11-2005, passed by the Commissioner of Customs Central Excise (Appeals), Guntur. 2. The appellants are the manufacturers of Cotton Yarn which are excisable commodity. The Asst. Commissioner confirmed the demand of Rs. 35,520/- for the period from January 2001 to March 2003 on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DR appeared on behalf of the Revenue. 4. The learned Chartered Accountant urged the following points :- (i) The appellants are neither manufacturers of iron and steel nor they do undertake any fabrication activity subject to duty of excise. Therefore Note 8 (a) of Section XV of the Central Excise Tariff have no application. (ii) The following case laws were relied on to urge that waste a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vat Credit Rules introduced vide Notification No. 27/2005-C.E. (N.T.), dated 16-5-2005 - 5A : - If the capital goods are cleared as waste and scrap the manufacture shall pay an amount equal to the duty leviable on transaction value. Hence the levy of duty of excise on capital goods including spare parts and accessories when cleared as waste and scrap is subject to duty of excise on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E, Mangalore v. Sree Krishna Pipe Industries [2004 (165) E.L.T. 508 (Kar.)] 5. The learned JDR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. In the present case, the appellants are not manufactures of iron and steel. They do not undertake any fabrication work. The scrap has arisen on account of worn out parts of machinery. The learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
