Scrap classification requires proof, and suppression can justify extended limitation for duty recovery.

A claim that excisable goods had become scrap must be supported by evidence; where no material shows that ingot moulds had lost their character or were fit only for metal recovery, classification as scrap is not able. The Tribunal also upheld valuation on the actual sale price because the appeal record admitted that assessable value was taken at the sale rate, and no contrary factual basis was shown. On limitation, clearance as scrap was not disclosed in the classification list and suppression of facts justified invocation of the extended period. The duty demand on ingot moulds under Heading 8454.00, the valuation method, and the time-bar objection were all rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the cleared goods were defective ingot moulds classifiable as waste and scrap or were ingot moulds classifiable under Heading 8454.00; (ii) whether duty had been correctly worked out on the actual sale value of the goods; (iii) whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the cleared goods were defective ingot moulds classifiable as waste and scrap or were ingot moulds classifiable under Heading 8454.00

Analysis: The appellant failed to produce evidence to rebut the finding that no material supported the claim that the goods were cleared as scrap. The statements relied upon did not establish that the goods were sold only as scrap or that they were fit only for recovery of metal. In the absence of evidence showing that the goods had lost their character as ingot moulds, the claimed scrap classification could not be accepted.

Conclusion: The goods were held to be ingot moulds classifiable under Heading 8454.00 and liable to duty at 15% ad valorem, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether duty had been correctly worked out on the actual sale value of the goods

Analysis: The contention that duty was calculated on a value other than the sale price was rejected because the appeal memo itself contained an admission that the Collector had taken the assessable value at the rate at which the goods were sold. No contrary factual basis was established before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The valuation adopted for duty demand was upheld, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation

Analysis: The plea of limitation was not accepted because the removal of the goods as scrap was not shown in the classification list and the clearance without duty involved suppression of facts. The later payment of duty did not cure the earlier non-disclosure, and the extended period was held to be available.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be within time, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the duty demand on the goods as ingot moulds, rejected the challenge to valuation, rejected the limitation plea, and sustained the adjudication order.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim that excisable goods have become scrap must be proved by evidence, and where suppression of the relevant facts is established, the extended period for recovery can be invoked.

---