https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96172 Waste and scrap arising during processing of duty-paid inputs was held to fall under Rule 57F(18), because the inputs were used in manufacture and were not cleared as such; the scrap, generated in processing and cleared on payment of duty, was therefore to be treated as waste arising from processed inputs, not as removal of inputs under Rule 57F(3). A separate demand dropped by the adjudicating authority could not be challenged in the Tribunal appeal when no appeal had been filed against that part of the original order, so that objection was not entertainable. en-us Fri, 04 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Dec 2011 17:23:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96172 Waste and scrap arising during processing of duty-paid inputs was held to fall under Rule 57F(18), because the inputs were used in manufacture and were not cleared as such; the scrap, generated in processing and cleared on payment of duty, was therefore to be treated as waste arising from processed inputs, not as removal of inputs under Rule 57F(3). A separate demand dropped by the adjudicating authority could not be challenged in the Tribunal appeal when no appeal had been filed against that part of the original order, so that objection was not entertainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 04 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96172