2003 (12) TMI 369

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... waste/scrap was cleared without filing any classification list and without declaring the correct assessable value thereof, at Nil rate of duty. On the basis that waste/scrap in question was covered by CET sub-heading 3915.90 attracting effective rate of 30% adv. duty by virtue of Notification No. 15/94, dated 1-3-1994, two show cause notices proposing recovery of Rs. 14,357/- and Rs. 35,903.90 were issued and adjudicated by the Asstt. Commissioner who continued the demands and also imposed penalties of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- respectively. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demands confirmed and the penalties holding that the waste/scrap arising during the course of manufacture of X-ray film and photographic paper are outside the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cular bag waste and HDPE laminated fabric waste being waste material not specifically provided for in the Tariff are not excisable goods. Therefore, the lower Appellate Authority has correctly held that the item in question is not covered by any entry in the CET and hence not excisable. 3. In the light of the above discussion, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. Sd/- (Jyoti Balasundaram) Member (J) Dated : 17-7-2003 4. [Contra per : C. Satapathy, Member (T)]. - I have carefully gone through the order recorded by my learned Sister. I find that the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kamath Packaging (supra) was rendered in the context of the Old Central Excise Tariff. The structure of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d Member : Whether the appeal is required to be rejected as proposed by Member (Judicial) OR Whether the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) requires to be set aside, as proposed by Member (Technical). Sd/- (C. Satapathy) Member (T) Dated : 25-8-2003   Sd/- (Jyoti Balasundaram) Member (J) Dated : 25-12-2003  [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - The question as has been referred to me is whether the waste of photographic film having base of polyester is to be classifiable under Chapter 39 as waste of plastic or is to be held non-excisable on account of no heading in the Tariff to cover it. 7. I heard both the sides. 8. It is with greatest respect not possible ....