TMI Blog1983 (12) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent. ORDER Question for decision in this appeal is whether in the case of the appellants who are permitted to follow Rule 56A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short the rules) procedure demand of duty for the period 1-11-1980 to 28-2-1981 on waste recycled as raw material for manufacture of Aluminium Extruded shapes and sections is justified. 2. The Assistant Collector and Collec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es 9 and 49 would not be applicable in case of a manufacturer following Rule 56A procedure but he argued that this did not affect the excisability of waste and scrap which incurred this liability as soon as they arose in the process of manufacture of finished product Aluminium Extrusions. He also argued before 1-3-1981. Item 27 had the description Aluminium in any crude form which would include wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... They cannot be used to interpret the meaning of word removed used in Rule 56A(3)(iv)(a) of the Rules. 6. We do not agree with the reasoning of the Collector (Appeals) that because Notification 34/81, dated 1-3-1981 exempted scrap and waste, earlier they must have been chargeable to duty. This need not necessarily and invariably be so. 7. As to Shri Laxmi Kumaran s argument that scrap and w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or in holding that recycling of the waste as a raw material for the same end product in the same factory amounted to removal within the meaning of Rule 56A(3)(iv)(a) or for the purpose relying on newly added explanations to Rules 9 and 49. This provision as to waste could only be attracted when there was removal from the factory in accordance with the provision of Rule 56A. 9. We, therefore, al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
