Waste and scrap duty liability remanded for fresh consideration after evidence was not properly examined.

Duty liability on clearance of waste and scrap under Rule 3(5A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2004 was set aside for fresh consideration because the adjudicating authority had not properly examined material showing that several cleared items were ordinary waste, including used empty oil cans, drums, electric wires and plastic bags. The record had not been considered in proper perspective, so the classification and liability issues required reconsideration. The matter was remanded to the original authority for a fresh decision after granting a proper hearing and allowing production of evidence in accordance with law and principles of natural justice.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order confirming duty liability on clearance of waste and scrap was liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after examining the material placed on record and following natural justice.

Analysis: The dispute concerned duty liability on waste and scrap cleared by the appellant under Rule 3(5A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2004. The record showed that the appellant had produced annexures indicating that several cleared items were ordinary waste such as used empty oil cans, drums, electric wires and plastic bags. Those details were not considered by the adjudicating authority in proper perspective. As the material relevant to classification and liability had not been examined, the issue required reconsideration by the original authority after granting proper hearing and allowing production of evidence.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision in accordance with law and principles of natural justice.

---