TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen the case went before a Division Bench of two Members for hearing on 7-4-2000, that Bench referred this case to a Larger Bench on account of conflict between the decisions in the case of CCE v. Universal Containers - 1999 (108) E.L.T. 573 and Amar Steel Container Corporation v. CCE - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 234 (Tribunal) = 1999 (35) RLT 805. Accordingly, this Larger Bench has been constituted to consider the issue. 2. Exemption under notification 91/88, dated 1-3-1988 is worded as under : ".............The Central Government hereby exempts goods of the description specified in column (2) of the Table hereto annexed and falling within Chapters 72, 73 or 84 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) ..........subject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d materials of Chapter 72 or 73 obtained by breaking up of ships, boats and other floating structures, - (a) manufactured or produced in India;" 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that clause (ii) under column (4) is applicable to their case and not clause (i) as held in the impugned order. He explained that metal sheets, coils and strips which are received as input are first cut to required lengths and shapes for the manufacture of parts of metal containers. The parts of a metal container are body and lids (top and bottom). Waste arises either during the manufacture of body, or lids, from such cut pieces of sheets and coils or strips. He stated that for the manufacture of body of the container, sheet, after cutting to siz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Table against Sl. No. 3 of notification and therefore such scrap would be entitled to exemption. Since the appellants are working under Modvat scheme the wastes arising from the manufacture of final product of metal containers can be either destroyed, exported or removed for home consumption on payment of duty. Notification No. 54/86 prescribes rate of duty for scrap classifiable under heading 72.03.20". He also submitted that the later decision of the Tribunal as reported in 2000 (117) E.L.T. 234 (Tribunal) = 1999 (35) RLT 805 has been rendered without taking into account the earlier decision. 5. Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the waste that arises during the process of manufacture of metal containers arises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... become valid precedent. Learned Departmental Representative also stated that the decision in Guest Keen Williams Ltd. has correctly analysed the legal position. He drew our attention in particular to the following passage in para 5. "We find that the expression used is "arisen from". The inputs were the steel sheets and the waste and scrap had arisen from the said steel sheets and it could not be said that the waste and scrap had arisen out of waste and scrap during the course of manufacture of the final products." Learned Departmental Representative also submitted that the decision of the Tribunal in Amar Steel Container Corporation (supra) is in conformity with the earlier decision in Guest Keen Williams Ltd. (supra). 6. We have pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|