TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed into bales and removed on sale basis. (b) They approached the Central Excise Authorities for granting a Registration certificate as a manufacturer dealers as they were informed that the processes carried out by them amounting to manufacture and directed levy under Central Excise Act, 1944. (c) Accordingly they filed an application on 8-6-1994 and obtained registration on dated 20-7-1994 which covers manufacturing and wholesale trading of their above said activity. They filed a classification list which was approved on 24-7-1994 and declaration under Rule 57G was filed on 21-7-1994 which was acknowledged on 22-7-1994. Thereafter they filed RT 12 return every month, which were approved by the Jurisdictional Range Officer. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 issued to the Appellants by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range-VII, Dn. F-II, Mumbai-I on the ground that the process carried out by the Appellants does not amount to manufacture as contemplated in Section 2(f) of the said Act. (ii) The Modvat declaration filed by the Appellants was rejected under Rule 57G of the said Rules as the Appellants are not eligible to hold Central Excise Registration and avail Modvat Credit for the reasons stated in (a) here-in-above. (iii) The 2 Show-cause-cum-demand notices totally amounting to Rs. 23,44,874/- (Rupees Twenty three lakhs forty four thousand eight hundred seventy four only) were confirmed as per the provisions of Rule 57-I of the said Rules. (h) Being agrieved, the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n if the goods belong to the same entry, the goods are different identifiable goods, known as such in the market. If that is so, the manufacture occurs, and if manufacture takes place, it is dutiable. Therefore, we do not find any reason to uphold the following finding of the original authority - "In the present case the assessee is bring (sic) to waste and scrap of ferrous alloy steel falling under sub-heading No. 7204.30 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and after belong the same they are closing the same to their customer which is falling under the same sub-heading despite the fact they filed the classification of the baled scrap under sub-heading No. 7204.30 of the schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Also the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing remains 'scrap' only and liable to duty under the same Chapter Heading. No chemical transformation takes place. No distinct goods emerge from such baling of scrap. The scrap remains scrap and used as scrap only. Therefore, the baling of loose scrap cannot be considered as manufacture" have been arrived at, without any material on record and based on his understanding cannot be accepted to question disturb the findings arrived on by the Assistant Commissioner, who approved the CL by findings accepting them levy of Central Excise Duty once again. This approval has not be challenged. It is not found to be alleged not legal and proper by the authorities competent to review such orders of the Assistant Commissioner. We find therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
