2000 (11) TMI 772

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellant. Shri P.R. Biswas, Consultant, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. -  The issue involved in all the four appeals of the Revenue, which are being disposed of by a common order are as follows : - (A)    The appellant took credit on their inputs viz. waste and scrap of cast iron (7204.10) and cleared "Chips and small particle of was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pondents have contended that Rule 57F(18) clearly envisages that waste and scrap arising in course of processing of inputs has to be cleared on payment of duty as if such waste is manufactured in the factory. The Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the demand of duty on this issue by observing as under :- Here the appellant did not clear input 'as such'. They broke huge sized scrap pig iron or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....peals). The inputs in question have admittedly not been cleared as such. But the same are chips and small particles of waste and scrap of cast iron. The remarks given by the respondents in their RG-23A Part - I are to the effect - "Dust scrap not fit for use hence transferred to chip waste and waste and crap of CI". This makes it very cleare that the waste and scrap which was originally brought as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s not been done by them. From the above stand of the Revenue one thing becomes clear that the Revenue is not disputing that credit availed on scrap would have travelled to the respondents for discharge of duty on the final product. What they are disputing is that proper procedure has not been adopted by the respondents. The procedure suggested by the Revenue is not under any rule of law and is als....