TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether duty was demandable on waste and scrap arising from capital goods purchased before the introduction of Rule 57S of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; (ii) whether duty was demandable on waste and scrap of capital goods on which Modvat credit had been availed; (iii) whether the demand was barred by limitation; and (iv) whether penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were sustainable.
Issue (i): whether duty was demandable on waste and scrap arising from capital goods purchased before the introduction of Rule 57S of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Analysis: The rule was read as applying to capital goods on which specified duty credit had been allowed. On that construction, waste and scrap arising from capital goods on which Modvat credit had not been taken could not be subjected to duty merely because scrap was cleared. The demand had been made by reading the scrap clause in isolation rather than harmoniously with the opening part of the rule.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): whether duty was demandable on waste and scrap of capital goods on which Modvat credit had been availed.
Analysis: Rule 57S(2)(c) expressly provided that where capital goods are sold as waste and scrap, duty leviable on such waste and scrap is payable. The cited precedents did not deal with Rule 57S and therefore did not displace the clear text of the rule. For capital goods on which Modvat credit had been taken, the duty liability on the scrap was upheld in principle.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the Revenue.
Issue (iii): whether the demand was barred by limitation.
Analysis: The period of dispute extended from October 1994 to July 1998 and the show cause notice was issued on 13 August 1999. In respect of clearances of waste and scrap arising from capital goods on which Modvat credit had been availed and which were removed without informing the department, suppression of facts was found for part of the demand. Accordingly, the longer period could be invoked for that part of the clearances.
Conclusion: The issue was decided partly in favour of the Revenue.
Issue (iv): whether penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were sustainable.
Analysis: These provisions were held applicable only prospectively from their introduction on 28 September 1996 and not retrospectively. The quantum of penalty, if leviable, was also to be reconsidered in the light of the duty finally adjudged after verification.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee to the extent that automatic retrospective application was negatived.
Final Conclusion: The matter required de novo determination of the duty liability on the disputed scrap arising from capital goods on which Modvat credit had been taken, after verification of the documents, with corresponding reconsideration of penalty and interest. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded by way of remand.
Ratio Decidendi: Waste and scrap of capital goods attract duty only to the extent the governing rule so provides, and penalty and interest provisions cannot be applied retrospectively before their statutory introduction.
TaxTMI 
