https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204366 CESTAT held that no duty or equivalent amount was payable on clearance of waste and scrap from capital goods cleared before insertion of Rule 3(5A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The department had alleged both that the goods were excisable and, alternatively, that Rule 3(5A) applied because credit had been taken on the capital goods. The tribunal found no evidence to prove manufacture of excisable goods, and the burden to establish excisability remained on the department. It also held that Rule 3(5A), introduced on 16-5-2005, did not deem waste and scrap to be manufactured goods and could not sustain the demand on the facts. en-us Tue, 23 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Jun 2011 10:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204366 CESTAT held that no duty or equivalent amount was payable on clearance of waste and scrap from capital goods cleared before insertion of Rule 3(5A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The department had alleged both that the goods were excisable and, alternatively, that Rule 3(5A) applied because credit had been taken on the capital goods. The tribunal found no evidence to prove manufacture of excisable goods, and the burden to establish excisability remained on the department. It also held that Rule 3(5A), introduced on 16-5-2005, did not deem waste and scrap to be manufactured goods and could not sustain the demand on the facts. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 23 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204366