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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether scrap generated during the course of manufacture could be removed without payment of duty under Rule 57F(2), and whether duty-free clearance was permissible only to the extent covered by Rule 57F(4).
Analysis: Rule 57F(2) permitted removal of inputs as such or after partial processing for specified purposes. Scrap arising during manufacture was not itself an input or a partially processed input, but waste generated in the course of production. Such waste was specifically governed by Rule 57F(4), which provided that waste arising from processing of inputs may be removed on payment of duty, removed without payment of duty only where covered by a class or category specified by the Central Government, or destroyed under prescribed conditions. The trade notice could support duty-free removal only to the extent it covered aluminium scrap, but no corresponding order or notification existed for brass and zinc scrap.
Conclusion: Removal of scrap without duty under Rule 57F(2) was not permissible; scrap not covered by an order under Rule 57F(4)(b) had to suffer duty. The assessee succeeded only for aluminium scrap covered by the trade notice, but failed for brass and zinc scrap, and the Revenue's appeal was allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: Waste arising during manufacture is governed by the specific scrap provision and cannot be cleared duty-free under the general input-removal provision unless it is covered by a valid governmental order specifying that class of waste.