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 the metal remnants arising from manufacture of metal containers were classifiable as scrap and waste under Heading 72.04 or as strips/flat rolled products under Heading 7211, and whether the assessee was entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 171/88.
Analysis: The remnants did not satisfy the dimensional requirements necessary to be treated as strips under the tariff. The material on record showed only the maximum possible width, but there was no reliable evidence regarding thickness or the requisite relationship between thickness and width. The objection based on the absence of supporting material for strip classification was left unanswered. The classification proposed in the notice also differed from the classification ultimately confirmed, and a different classification could not be sustained on that basis. In any event, there was no satisfactory basis to hold that the goods were anything other than scrap, especially when their sale to scrap dealers was not denied. The exemption under Notification No. 171/88 was not available in view of the concession recorded regarding duty liability.
Conclusion: The remnants were held to be scrap and not strips, and the appeal succeeded to that extent, with the duty position left to be discharged in accordance with the undertaking recorded.