TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether duty was payable on paper scrap and HDPE scrap said to have arisen from packaging material; (ii) whether duty was payable on scrap of capital goods when no Modvat credit had been availed on such capital goods.
Issue (i): Whether duty was payable on paper scrap and HDPE scrap said to have arisen from packaging material.
Analysis: Rule 57F(18) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 fastened duty only on waste arising from the processing of inputs in respect of which credit had been taken. The record did not show that the paper scrap and HDPE scrap arose from such processed inputs, and the Supreme Court ruling relied upon held that packing material cannot be treated as waste arising from processing of inputs for which credit was taken.
Conclusion: No duty was payable on the paper scrap and HDPE scrap.
Issue (ii): Whether duty was payable on scrap of capital goods when no Modvat credit had been availed on such capital goods.
Analysis: Rule 57S(2)(c) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 applied to capital goods sold as waste and scrap where credit had been taken. The capital goods in question were acquired before the Modvat credit scheme became applicable to capital goods, and there was no material to show that Modvat credit had been availed. In the absence of credit, the statutory condition for invoking Rule 57S(2)(c) was not satisfied.
Conclusion: No duty was payable on the scrap of capital goods.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the disputed scrap did not fall within the duty-paying categories under the relevant Modvat provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: Duty under the Modvat scrap provisions is attracted only when the waste arises from credited inputs or when capital goods sold as scrap had been subjected to Modvat credit.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
