Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chandigarh vs M/S Stesalit Ltd on 17 November, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Date of Hearing : 17.11.2011 Excise Appeal No. 2558 of 2003 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 189-91/AC/SML/99/9453 dated 22.12.99 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh] Coram: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Mathew John, Technical Member 1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? CCE, Chandigarh Appellant Vs. M/s Stesalit Ltd. Respondent
Appearance:
Appeared for Appellant : Shri B.K. Singh, Jt. CDR & Sh. N. Pathak, DR
Appeared for Respondent : Shri Sudeep Singh, Advocate
Coram:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri Mathew John, Member (Technical)
Order No.dated.
Per Mathew John:
The Respondents were engaged in the manufacture of Smoothing Reactors under Chapter Heading 8504 of the Central Excise Tariff. They were also repairing such reactors received from users of the equipments, under Rule 173H of Central Excise Rules 1994. During the period November 1998 to Sept, 1998 they had cleared copper scrap arising out of such repair without payment of duty. Revenue issued three Show Cause Notices demanding excise duty on such waste and scrap cleared. While adjudicating the notices, the Assistant Commissioner dropped the demands on the ground that no knew product has emerged during repair work and no demand of duty is sustainable on such waste and scrap. Aggrieved by the order, the Revenue filed appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) noted the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Diesel Components Workshop Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2000 (120) ELT 648 and dismissed the appeal filed by the Respondent. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed this Appeal.
2. The authorised representative of Revenue submits that as per provisions of Rule 57F(18) any person availing Cenvat credit is required to pay proper duty on waste and scrap generated and cleared from the factory. It is also argued by the Revenue that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Diesel Components Workshop Ltd. (supra) will not apply since in that case the goods were not received under Rule 173H whereas in the present case goods were received in Rule 173H. They also submit that Rule 57(18) is not confined to inputs alone but is applicable also to components which become defective in the process of manufacture or repair.
3. We have considered arguments on both sides. We find that this matter is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Grasim Industries Vs. UOI reported in 2011 (273) ELT 10 (SC) and therefore the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable and the same is rejected.
(Pronounced in Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) (Mathew John) Member (Technical) RM