2018 (1) TMI 1513 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules in favor of appellant, setting aside excise duty demand on metal waste

M/s Ultratech Cement Limited Versus CCE, Raipur

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand for excise duty on waste and scrap of metals sold without payment of duty. The ... Taxability - waste and scrap of various metals arising within the factory including used capital goods on which Cenvat Credit was availed - HELD THAT:- The issue decided in appellant own case CCE, RAIPUR VERSUS M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. [2017 (5) TMI 1015 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where an identical issue has come up before this Tribunal in the assessee-Respondents’ own case M/s Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. vs CCE&ST, Raipur [2016 (9) TMI 1234 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that in view of the settled principles of law, we are not in agreement with the findings of the lower authority that prescription of Chapter Note in the tariff will create the duty liability on the waste and scrap of metal goods arisen during the course of repair and maintenance of plant and machinery. Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Appeal against order dated 14.11.2007 by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Raipur-I for the period April 2006 to September 2006 regarding demand of excise duty on waste and scrap of metals sold without payment of duty.Analysis:The appellant, engaged in cement and clinker manufacturing, availed Cenvat Credit on inputs, capital goods, and input services under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The dispute arose when the Department demanded excise duty on waste and scrap of metals, including used capital goods, sold without duty payment. The appellant contested this demand, leading to the present appeal.During the proceedings, the Tribunal referred to a previous case involving the same appellant where it was observed that the definition of 'waste and scrap of metals' in the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, is for determining the applicable duty rate, not for the process of manufacture. The Tribunal had previously set aside a similar demand in the appellant's case based on this interpretation.Following the precedent set by the earlier order, the Tribunal found no justification to uphold the impugned order demanding excise duty on waste and scrap of metals. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, setting aside the demand for excise duty.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the demand for excise duty on waste and scrap of metals, including used capital goods, was not justified based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions. The decision was influenced by the Tribunal's previous order in a similar case involving the appellant, where a similar demand was set aside.