Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.37 seconds)Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs C.C.E on 28 September, 1994
The department cannot be expected to know the activities being carried on by the assessee who are working under the Self-Removal System unless they furnish the details called for by the department. In the present case, in spite of the appellants having been asked to give complete details about the generation of scrap, they have not placed the required information. We also observe that the appellants are working under Self Removal Procedure Scheme (SRP) and lot of faith is reposed on the assessee to maintain all the records correctly, which they have not done in the instant case. Strong reliance was placed by the appellants in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. CCE, 2002 (82) ECC 462 (SC): 1994 (55) ECR 7 (SC) wherein it was held that when the law requires that an intention to evade payment of duty, then it is not mere failure to pay duty.
M/S. Hindalco Industries Ltd., ... vs Cce, Allahabad on 6 November, 2000
The burden was on the part of the appellants to have come out with details that the scrap generated was because of the revamping of the machines, wear and tear and condemned or worn out parts of the machines, which burden has not been discharged by the appellants. Therefore, this plea of the appellants cannot be accepted. As regards the dutiability of the scrap generated, the case law in the matter of Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad, 2002 (144) ELT 339 does not support the case of the appellants. Rather it support the case of the department. What is held therein is that waste and scrap arising from manufacture or mechanical working of iron or steel are liable to duty.
Section 2 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Union Of India And Ors vs Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. And Anr on 19 April, 1995
(f) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Indian Aluminium Co., 1995 (77) ELT (SC) has held that refuse, ashes, rubbish emerging in the course of manufacture are not excisable. It was also held therein that rubbish can be sold but that does not become a marketable commodity.
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Shri Rajeev Mardia And M/S. Mardia Steel ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Indore on 14 March, 2001
and that the appellants have not filed any declaration under Rule 173B of the CE Rules, 1944. The learned JDR, in the face of the above statement recorded from two senior officers of the appellants, submitted that the impugned order is perfectly in order and the appeal is devoid of merits. He, therefore, prayed for rejection of the appeal. While winding up his arguments, he pressed into service the decision of the North Regional Bench in the case of Ranjeev Steel Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh, 2003 (154) ELT 450 wherein it is held that waste and scrap arising out of mechanical working of iron or steel are liable to duty, and not waste and scrap as a result of wear and tear of ingots mould.
Union Of India & Ors vs Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 3 May, 1988
The appellants have also taken a ground in the appeal that the classification of the goods have been adopted arbitrarily and in support of their plea they have cited the case judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI v. Madhumilan Syntex, 1988 (35) ELT 349, This case law has no application to the facts of the present case inasmuch as in the cited case the classification approved was modified without any notice to the party. There is no such situation in the present case. Further, in the present case, the appellants have not come out with any other proposed classification while contending that the classification adopted by the Department is incorrect. They challenge the classification on the ground that no manufacturing activity has taken place. Section note 8(a) of Chapter 72 clearly specifies that the expression waste and scrap means "metal waste and scrap from the manufacture or mechanical working of metals, and metal goods definitely not usable as such because of breakage, cutting-up, wear or other reasons. Therefore, we hold that there is force in the plea of the appellants that the classification was arbitrarily fixed or that it was incorrect. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that duty has been correctly demanded from the appellants and we confirm the same in terms of the impugned order.
M/S. Punjab Concast Steels vs Cce Chandigarh on 16 February, 2001
Similar view has been taken in the case of Rajeev Steels Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh, 2003 (154) ELT 450, relied upon by the Revenue. Therefore, the issue with regard to dutiability of scrap generated by manufacture or mechanical working of iron or steel, is no longer res Integra by the decisions cited supra. We have held above that going by the evidence on record/ including the statement of the two senior officers of the appellants, who have given a detailed account of the existence of the three workshops and the machines installed therein, as noted above, the waste emerged was as a result of mechanical working on the virgin metals valued at Rs. 3.34 crores.
1