TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim u/r 57S(2)(c) – Rule 57S(2)(c) was not in force during relevant period - held that when there was no provision for demand of duty on the waste & scrap of the capital goods during the material period, demand is not sustainable - E/1980/2006-SM(BR) - 613/2008-SM(BR)(PB), - Dated:- 15-1-2008 - Shri P.K. Das, Member (J) Shri Kapil Vaish , C.A. , for the Appellant. Shri Raj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 57S(2)(c) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 1,74,004/- and imposed penalty of equal amount along with interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. 3. Ld. Counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that the insurance claim was received by the appellant after 1-4-2000. He further submits that Rule 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter hearing both the sides, I find that it is revealed from the show cause notice that the damaged machines sold/adjusted during the financial year 2000-2001. Rule 57S(2)(c) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 was not in force during the financial year 2000-2001. In the case of Birla Corporation Ltd. (supra), it is seen that during the relevant period sub-Rule 1(c) of Rule 57AB of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g during use or dismantling of the capital goods, not chargeable to duty. I find that when there was no provision for demand of duty on the waste and scrap of the capital goods during the material period, demand of duty is not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief. (Order dictated pronounced in open court on 15-1-2008.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
