Excisable scrap and aggregate clearances: job-work goods and incidental scrap were excluded from exemption computation.

Scrap incidentally arising in the manufacture of steel nuts was not treated as an independent excisable commodity under Tariff Item 68 merely because it was sold separately, and the excise authority's contrary classification was rejected. For exemption under Notification No. 80/80-C.E., the value of steel bars received only for grinding job work could not be included in the aggregate value of clearances because no excise duty was payable by the manufacturer on that job work. The demand was quashed and the exemption benefit was upheld for the relevant period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether scrap arising during the manufacture of nuts could be classified as a separate excisable item under Tariff Item No. 68; (ii) Whether the value of steel bars received for grinding job work had to be included in computing the aggregate value of clearances for exemption under Notification No. 80/80-C.E.

Issue (i): Whether scrap arising during the manufacture of nuts could be classified as a separate excisable item under Tariff Item No. 68.

Analysis: Scrap that emerges incidentally in the course of manufacturing the principal product does not amount to manufacture of an independent commodity merely because it is sold separately. The scrap in question arose from the process of making steel nuts from steel bars, and the contrary classification adopted by the excise authority was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The scrap could not be treated as a separate excisable item under Tariff Item No. 68, and the finding of the excise authority was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the value of steel bars received for grinding job work had to be included in computing the aggregate value of clearances for exemption under Notification No. 80/80-C.E.

Analysis: The exemption turned on the aggregate value of clearances of excisable goods in respect of which duty was payable by the manufacturer. The steel bars were received only for grinding on job basis and were returned to the customers as bright steel bars. Since the petitioners were not liable to pay excise duty on that job work, the value of such bars could not be added to the aggregate clearances for denying the exemption.

Conclusion: The value of the steel bars undergoing job work was not includible in the aggregate value of clearances, and the petitioners remained entitled to the exemption.

Final Conclusion: The impugned demand was quashed and the petitioners were held entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification for the relevant period.

Ratio Decidendi: For exemption schemes linked to aggregate clearances, only the value of excisable goods in respect of which the manufacturer is liable to pay duty can be counted, and scrap incidentally arising from manufacture does not become a separately classifiable excisable product merely because it is sold.

---