Duty on used machinery and scrap depends on actual nature of clearance; duplicate demand fails where duty was already paid.

Duty on clearance of old plant and machinery depends on the actual nature and description of each clearance, including whether the goods were removed as used machinery or as scrap, and not merely on sale by weight to a scrap dealer. Where duty on M.S. Window Section had already been paid on removal, no further demand, penalty, or interest could survive. Allegations concerning shortage and subsequent clearance of billets required verification of the factual position, including the asserted reversal of credit. The matter was remanded for fresh examination on the disputed clearances, while the demand relating to M.S. Window Section was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether duty on clearance of old plant and machinery was to be computed on depreciated value or transaction value depending on whether the goods were cleared as used machinery or as waste and scrap; (ii) whether the demand relating to clearance of M.S. Window Section could survive when the duty amount had already been paid on removal; (iii) whether the demand relating to alleged shortage and subsequent clearance of billets was sustainable when reversal of credit was asserted.

Issue (i): Whether duty on clearance of old plant and machinery was to be computed on depreciated value or transaction value depending on whether the goods were cleared as used machinery or as waste and scrap.

Analysis: The classification of the cleared goods could not be determined merely from the fact that they were sold by weight and purchased by a scrap dealer. The invoice descriptions showed that some clearances were of old and used machinery, while others were described as scrap. The applicable duty consequence depended on the actual description and nature of each clearance. The matter also required examination of the contention that recovery under the relevant mechanism was introduced only later by Notification No. 03/2013-C.E. (N.T.) dated 01.03.2013.

Conclusion: The demand on this issue was not finally upheld and was remanded for fresh verification and decision in accordance with the nature of each invoice.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand relating to clearance of M.S. Window Section could survive when the duty amount had already been paid on removal.

Analysis: The record showed that the M.S. Window Section was cleared on payment of duty, and the amount corresponding to the Cenvat credit stood adjusted through such payment. In that situation, no further demand of the same credit could survive, and the consequential penalty and interest also could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The demand on this issue was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the demand relating to alleged shortage and subsequent clearance of billets was sustainable when reversal of credit was asserted.

Analysis: The assertion of prior reversal of credit was not supported by evidence on record, and the factual position required verification. The matter therefore called for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority on the factual aspect of reversal and clearance.

Conclusion: The demand on this issue was remanded for fresh verification.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent of setting aside the demand relating to M.S. Window Section, while the remaining demands were sent back for de novo consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: Duty liability on clearance of used capital goods or scrap must be determined from the actual nature and description of each clearance, and a demand cannot survive where the relevant amount has already been paid, but disputed factual questions require fresh verification.

---