Differential duty on returned castings cleared as scrap was not sustainable where duty had already been paid on scrap clearance.

Returned castings received back from the buyer under Rule 57F(1)(ii) retained their character until receipt, but their later clearance by the manufacturer was as scrap. The ruling notes that there was no material to show the goods were not scrap or were cleared in the guise of scrap, and the earlier Modvat-related decision concerned only credit on receipt back of goods, not the character of the goods at the stage of subsequent clearance. Because duty had already been paid on the scrap clearance, no differential duty could be demanded by treating the goods as castings.

---

---

Issues: Whether castings returned by the buyer after payment of duty and later cleared by the manufacturer as scrap were liable to differential duty as castings, or whether duty paid on scrap clearance was sufficient.

Analysis: The returned goods were received back under Rule 57F(1)(ii) as inputs returned as such, and their character as castings remained unchanged until receipt. Their later clearance was as scrap, and there was no material to show that they were not scrap or that they had been cleared in the guise of scrap. The earlier Modvat-related ruling only governed credit on receipt back of goods and did not alter the character of the goods at the stage of subsequent clearance. Since scrap was dutiable and duty had been discharged on that clearance, there was no basis for demanding differential duty by treating the goods as castings.

Conclusion: The demand for differential duty was not sustainable and the appeal succeeded.

---