Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether waste and scrap cleared by the assessee were covered by Notification No. 89/95-C.E. despite some finished goods having been erroneously cleared on payment of duty, and whether the proviso to the notification barred the exemption.
Analysis: The exemption under Notification No. 89/95-C.E. applied to waste, parings and scrap arising in the course of manufacture of exempted goods. The explanation defined exempted goods as excisable goods chargeable to nil rate or exempted from the whole of duty under another notification. Coaches, coach components and containers were shown to be exempt under Notification No. 62/95-C.E. during the material period. Mere erroneous payment of duty on such goods did not change their character into non-exempted goods. The proviso, therefore, was not attracted, and the department's reliance on actual duty payment was misplaced.
Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 89/95-C.E., and the duty demand on the waste and scrap was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The exemption was held applicable, the demand was quashed, and the appeal succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: Goods otherwise exempt under a notification do not lose their status as exempted goods merely because duty was mistakenly paid on them; the proviso to an exemption notification must be applied according to the notification's own definition of exempted goods.