TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (10) TMI 202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entral Excise, Agra, considered that the aforesaid "Bhagar" also attracted duty. Accordingly, after holding adjudication proceedings, he passed an order on 1-7-1981 demanding Rs. 83,244.00 from the respondents on account of "Bhagar" cleared during the period from 1-3-1979 to 31-3-1980 without payment of duty. In appeal, the Collector (Appeals) set aside the Assistant Collector's order by holding that broken glass was a waste material generated during the process of manufacture of articles of glass and, therefore, not excisable. It is this order that is challenged by the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur, in the present appeal. 2. The respondents did not appear during the hearing. However, they had furnished certain submissions and expres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the course of manufacturing the end product is not excisable. The goods in that case were waste/scrap obtained in the course of manufacture of tyres, tubes, flaps and other rubber products. In the course of manufacture, quantities of rubber compound (required for manufacture of the aforesaid goods) are rejected due to defects such as wrong mixing or over-heating. Also, at various stages of manufacture, quantities of rubber cuttings emerge. Further, sub-standard and defective goods are destroyed by cutting and punching. All these waste/scrap were claimed to be non-excisable by the petitioner whereas the department contended that they were excisable under the residual Item No. 68, CET. The Court, after observing in para 7 of the report that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ap of a new and different article. No one has brought into existence a new substance having a distinctive name, character or use." 5. The observations of the Bombay High Court in Indian Aluminum Co. Ltd. v. A. K. Bandopadhyay & Ors., 1980 ELT 146 (para 24 of the report) on the excisability of dross and skimmings thrown up in the course of manufacture of aluminium sheets from ingots are also apposite. The Court said that dross and skimmings were not the result of treatment, labour or manipulation whereby the end-product is dross and skimmings. They were merely the refuse or scum or rubbish thrown out in the course of manufacture of the finished product, namely, aluminium sheet. Nor were they a by-product. The Court observed that almost anyt....