Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Viraj Forgings Ltd. And Anr. vs Cce on 26 February, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(93)ECR367(TRI.-MUMBAI)
ORDER Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The question for consideration in both the appeals is the same i.e., whether the assessee is entitled to avail of the provisions of Rule 57(4) in respect of the scrap arising in the case of manufacture of steel flanges and bright bars. Each of the assessee has cleared this scrap to job worker for conversion into ingots, which were returned to them were put to use again in the manufacture of flanges and bars. Each of the assessee has not paid duty, on the scrap claiming that the action were covered by Rule 57(4). The Commissioner (Appeals) has taken the view in each of the orders that the scrap was not an input as such, or a partially processed input, and hence would not fall within the scope of Rule 57(4).
2. The same question with regard for an earlier period of the Rule 57(3) is pending for consideration by the larger bench to whom it has been referred by the Tribunal's decision in CCE v. Indian Steel and Allied Industries to resolve the contradictory view that in Chloride Industries v. CCE and CCE v. Nucom Industries . The South Regional Bench has also referred a matter CCE v. Mercury Fittings to larger bench.
3. Accordingly we waive deposit of the duty demanded and stay its recovery.
4. These matters may also be placed before the President to be taken-up along with other matters, which have been referred to the larger bench.
(Dictated in Court).