Tribunal rules duty demand on scrap of capital goods without specific provision is not sustainable

The Tribunal held that the duty demand for clearing scrap of capital goods without payment of duty was not sustainable as Rule 57AB, relied on by the Revenue, pertained to the clearance of inputs and capital goods, not scrap. Since there was no specific provision in the Act or Rules for duty on scrap of capital goods during the relevant period, the Tribunal set aside the demand and penalty, allowing the appeal.

---

---

Issues involved:
Interpretation of Rule 57AB of the Central Excise Rules regarding duty payment for scrap of capital goods.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal confirming duty demand for clearing scrap of capital goods without payment of duty. The appellant argued that the demand was for a period when there were no specific provisions under the Rules for duty on scrap of capital goods. They contended that Rule 57AB only applies to the removal of inputs and capital goods from the factory, not to scrap clearance. Therefore, they claimed that the demand was not sustainable due to the absence of a relevant rule.

The Revenue, on the other hand, relied on Rule 57AB to argue that duty payment is required by the manufacturer for the removal of capital goods, including scrap. They maintained that since the scrap was related to capital goods, duty was liable to be paid for its clearance.

Considering the period in question (June 2000 to May 2001), the Tribunal noted that there was no provision in the Act or Rules for duty payment specifically for scrap of capital goods. Rule 57AB, which the Revenue relied on, pertained to the clearance of inputs and capital goods, not scrap. As the capital goods were not being removed in this case, only the scrap was cleared. Therefore, in the absence of a relevant legal provision during the period in question, the Tribunal held that the demand and penalty were not sustainable and set them aside, allowing the appeal.

---