Waste and scrap classification under Section XV requires metal manufacture or working; dismantled machinery from paper manufacturing did not qualify.

Worn-out machinery cleared by a Kraft paper manufacturer as scrap was not classifiable as waste and scrap under Chapter Heading 7204.90 read with Note 8(a) of Section XV, because the assessee was not engaged in the manufacture or mechanical working of metals or metal goods. The Tribunal held that material arising from dismantling worn-out machinery does not satisfy the statutory requirement that waste and scrap must result from the manufacture or mechanical working of metals or metal goods. The Revenue's challenge therefore failed, and the classification claim was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether worn out machinery cleared as scrap by a paper manufacturer could be treated as waste and scrap falling under Chapter Heading 7204.90 under Note 8(a) of Section XV.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the assessee was a Kraft Paper manufacturer and not an industry engaged in mechanical working of metals. The material cleared did not arise from manufacture or mechanical working of metals or metal goods. Dismantling of worn out machinery could not be equated with waste and scrap within the scope of Note 8(a) of Section XV.

Conclusion: The goods were not classifiable as waste and scrap under the cited heading, and the Revenue's appeal had no merit.

Ratio Decidendi: Waste and scrap under Note 8(a) of Section XV must arise from the manufacture or mechanical working of metals or metal goods, and mere dismantling of worn out machinery does not satisfy that requirement.

---