TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 823X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous judicial pronouncement on this issue has been consistent and clear. Such scrap materials arising as incidental products and even if they were sold for a consideration cannot be considered as excisable products. Reference made to the decision in the case of Magnum Ventures vs. CCE, Ghaziabad [2014 (4) TMI 416 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that the emergence of sludge and pulper waste during the course of manufacture of paper or paper board cannot be held to the result of any manufacturing activity. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/51560 to 51563 of 2017 - 51001–51004/2018 - Dated:- 14-3-2018 - Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Ms. Saumya Meh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d water. During such manufacture these various assorted scrap arise which in any case cannot be considered as products arising out of a manufacturing process. The view of various judicial pronouncement on this issue has been consistent and clear. Such scrap material s arising as incidental products and even if they were sold for a consideration cannot be considered as excisable products. In this connection, were fer to the decision of the Tribunal in Magnum Ventures vs. CCE, Ghaziabad - 2014 (303) ELT 226 (Tri. Del.). The Tribunal examining the provisions of Section 2 (d) including the Explanation thereto observed as under: 9. The lower authorities have strongly relied upon the amendment made in Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elling or re - labelling or declaring MRP, etc. on the said sludge and paper waste is not involved in the present cases. As such, the emergence of sludge and pulper waste during the course of manufacture of paper or paperboard cannot be held to the result of any manufacturing activity. 10. The lower authorities have relied upon the addition of explanation to Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, if a product is not a result of a manufacture, such explanation relatable to the excisability of the goods, based upon the marketability of the same, cannot be used for holding a product to be the result of manufacture inasmuch as the same not only relates to the marketability of the product but also the criteria of manufactur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
