2001 (2) TMI 707

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... paid modvated plastic granules. When the waste and scrap was removed to their job workers, no duty was paid. The Astt. Commissioner of Central Excise took a view that the plastic waste and scrap arising out of the processing of the Modvat availed inputs were neither inputs as such nor were inputs which had been partially processed and thus such removal was not covered by the provisions of Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). He held that appropriate duty as applicable to waste and scrap of plastics was liable to be paid and he confirmed the demand of Rs 45,400/-. Relying upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Shriram Refrigeration Indus. v. CCE, Hyderabad, 1996 (81) E.L.T. 517 (T), th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Bench decision related to the different products and was not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The present case was distinguishable. 3. We have carefully considered the matter. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of telephone cables (final products) and were using duty paid plastic granules (inputs) in the manufacture of such final products. They were availing of the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of the Central Excise duty having been paid on their inputs. In the case of manufacture of final products, certain waste and scrap of plastics was generated. Modvat credit had already been availed of in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of final products (out of which the waste and scrap a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the scrap generated in the factory could be treated like any other input brought into the factory by virtue of the explanation under Rule 57A which covers the goods manufactured in the factory of production and which are used within the factory of production in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. We observe that the scrap generated in the appellant's factory has to be dealt with in terms of the specific provision for scrap set out under the Modvat Rules viz. Rule 57F(4). Under Rule 57F (4) since the scrap is sent outside the factory the same is liable to pay duty. The appellant's plea is that they should be treated like any other input brought inside the factory by virtue of being notified under Rule 57A. It is observe....