Exempted goods retain their character despite mistaken duty payment, preserving scrap exemption under linked excise notification.

Waste, parings and scrap arising from manufacture of goods exempt under Notification No. 62/95-CE continued to qualify for exemption under Notification No. 89/95-CE. Erroneous payment of duty on clearance did not change the underlying character of the goods as exempted goods, so the proviso excluding waste from factories manufacturing other than exempted goods was not attracted. The Tribunal was also found to have considered both notifications, including the Explanation and proviso, and to have recorded a reasoned finding on their applicability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether waste, parings and scrap arising from manufacture of goods exempted under Notification No. 62/95-CE remained exempt under Notification No. 89/95-CE notwithstanding erroneous payment of duty on the manufactured goods. (ii) Whether the Tribunal failed to record a finding on the applicability of Notifications No. 62/95-CE and 89/95-CE.

Issue (i): Whether waste, parings and scrap arising from manufacture of goods exempted under Notification No. 62/95-CE remained exempt under Notification No. 89/95-CE notwithstanding erroneous payment of duty on the manufactured goods.

Analysis: The exemption for waste, parings and scrap under Notification No. 89/95-CE applied to waste arising in the course of manufacture of exempted goods. The Explanation to the notification defined exempted goods as goods chargeable to nil duty or exempted under another notification issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 or Section 5A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Since the manufactured goods were themselves exempt under Notification No. 62/95-CE, their erroneous clearance on payment of duty did not alter their character as exempted goods. The proviso excluding waste cleared from a factory manufacturing other than exempted goods was therefore not attracted.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 89/95-CE and the duty demand was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal failed to record a finding on the applicability of Notifications No. 62/95-CE and 89/95-CE.

Analysis: The Tribunal had expressly considered the two notifications, the proviso, and the Explanation, and had given a reasoned finding that the proviso did not apply on the facts. The record showed a clear determination on the relevance and applicability of both notifications.

Conclusion: The objection was rejected and the Tribunal's finding on the notifications was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The exemption claim succeeded, the challenge to the Tribunal's reasoning failed, and the revenue appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods that are substantively exempt under a notification do not lose their character as exempted goods merely because duty was mistakenly paid on their clearance; waste arising from their manufacture remains eligible for a linked exemption unless the exclusionary proviso is truly attracted.

---