9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants for the removal of scrap during the period from 1-12-1994 to 31-8-1998 and the imposition of penalty of an equal amount. 2. The Appellants are engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapters 83, 84 and 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 at their what is called Powai Works located at Saki Vihar Road Powai, Mumbai- 400072. 3. The Appellants, at the said Powai Works, have four manufacturing units viz. (i) Powai Engineering Unit (PEW), (ii) Powai Switchgear Unit (PSW), (iii) Bottle Closure Unit (BCD), and (iv) Powai Electronic Unit (PLW). All these units hold separate excise registration and maintain separate excise records including Modvat records. These units purchase independently all the raw m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eclared the waste and scrap generated out of the non-modvat claimed raw materials and obsolete/damaged/bought-out components/sub-assemblies/other goods on which set off/modvat is not claimed. 8. In furtherance of the audit objection dated 5-11-1998 and 6-11-1998, the Appellants by their letter dated 8-12-1999 stated that, besides the scrap generated in the manufacture of the final product, which are cleared on payment of duty, other types of waste and scrap of iron, which includes iron and steel goods like fencing materials, jallis, box channels, beams etc., which are replaced during the repair to sheds and buildings, on which materials no Modvat is claimed and, therefore, the scrap of the same is cleared without payment of duty. 9. By a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under separate series of invoices and did not reflect the said fact in the monthly returns. He further held that the Appellants are wantonly suppressing the material fact from the Department in order to evade duty. 11. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellants against the said Order-in Original. Hence the present appeal. 12. We heard both the sides and perused the records. 13. The Appellants have contended that no Central Excise duty is pay-able on the scrap generated out of the fencing materials, jallis, box channels, beams, structural material and broken and damaged angles etc. and relied upon following decisions of the Tribunal in support of their contention : (i) Hindalco Industries L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, box channels, beams, structural material and broken and damaged angles etc. in the light of the cited orders of the Tribunal, viz. : (i) Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad, reported in 2002 (144) E.L.T. 339. (ii) A.C.C. Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal, reported in 2001 (133) E.L.T. 375 and (iii) H.E.G. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal reported in 2005 (191) E.L.T. 1199. 17. We further find that no evidence is produced by the Revenue to show that the said scrap was generated out of the manufacturing activity and on which credit was availed. In the case of M/s. Banswara Textile Mills Ltd., reported in 2005 (183) E.L.T. 318 (Tri.-Delhi), it is held that the burden is on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
