2018 (1) TMI 410 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal emphasizes correct classification for duty assessment on waste & scrap, grants relief to appellants

Shree Khedut Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandli Ltd Versus CCE & ST - Vadodara-II

The Tribunal set aside the orders demanding duty on waste and scrap of capital goods, emphasizing the necessity of proper classification before imposing ... Duty on capital goods - Rule 3 (5A) of CCR, 2004 - case of appellant is that it has not been classified under which rule they were required to pay duty, therefore, demand of duty not sustainable - Held that: - Without classifying the waste and scrap, duty cannot be demanded from the appellants - Appeal allowed. Issues:Demand of duty on waste and scrap of capital goods under Rule 3 (5A) of CCR, 2004.Analysis:The appellants, who are manufacturers of Sugar and Molasses, were demanded duty on waste and scrap of capital goods under Rule 3 (5A) of CCR, 2004. The show cause notices were issued for non-payment of duty on waste and scrap of capital goods. The matter was adjudicated, and duty demand was confirmed along with interest and penalties. The appellants appealed against these orders.The appellant's counsel argued that duty cannot be demanded without classifying under which rule it is required to be paid. They relied on the decisions of the Tribunal in previous cases to support their argument. On the other hand, the Revenue's counsel contended that duty on waste and scrap of capital goods is required to be paid under Rule 3 (5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.The Tribunal examined the issue and referred to previous decisions. It was observed that waste and scrap must be classified before demanding duty. The Tribunal also emphasized the need for proper classification of goods for duty assessment. It was noted that the waste and scrap generated from dismantling of machinery due to wear and tear of machine parts may not be considered excisable goods leviable to duty. The Tribunal held that without classifying the waste and scrap, duty cannot be demanded from the appellants.Therefore, the impugned orders demanding duty on waste and scrap of capital goods were set aside, and it was held that duty cannot be demanded without proper classification of the waste and scrap. Consequently, both appeals were allowed with any consequential relief.This judgment highlights the importance of proper classification of waste and scrap of capital goods before demanding duty, as established through previous decisions and legal principles. It emphasizes the necessity for clarity and adherence to rules in duty assessment procedures related to waste and scrap in manufacturing processes.