2005 (9) TMI 339

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and a penalty of the like amount was imposed under Rule 173Q read with Section 11AC and interest was also directed to be paid under Section 11AB of the said Act. 2. The matter was called out for final hearing on 29-9-2005. No one appeared for the respondent. After the authorised representative of the department for the appellant Commissioner completed his arguments, the matter was kept in the second sitting to enable the authorised representative of the respondent to appear. However, no one was present through out the day for the respondent and the matter was, therefore, kept today to give a further opportunity to the respondents, to argue the matter. Even today, no one appeared....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....invoices were not submitted to the Department nor was any declaration filed before 5-12-1997. The applicability of the extended period of demand was, therefore, held to be justified. The adjudicating authority further held that the scrap generated as outlined in the reply of the respondent would show that it was generated during the course of manufacture and Rule 57F(18) was clearly attracted. The adjudicating authority rejected the contention of the respondent that this case was covered by the ratio of the decision of the Delhi High Court in Modi Rubber Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1987 (29) E.L.T. 502. It was observed by the adjudicating authority that in Modi Rubber case, it was held that waste and scrap specifically covered by the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es that the manufacturer shall not, without permission of the proper officer remove from the approved premises any non-excisable goods produced in such premises, or any intermediate or residual product except waste matter. It was observed that so far as waste matter was concerned, it had been treated as a non-excisable product with no restrictions on its removal. The High Court observed that no amendment was made even after the introduction of Tariff Item No. 68 w.e.f. 1-3-1975 and the waste matter was still treated as non-excisable in Rule 50. It is clear from paragraph 4 of the judgment that the quantity of processed waste/scrap was declared by that assessee on 5-1-1982 i.e. when the Modvat provisions were not in existence. This aspect, h....