2011 (7) TMI 482

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....les made of stainless steel and export the entire production under letter of undertakings. The appellant herein availed Cenvat credit of the duty paid on cold rolled SS coils / pipes / strips / SS sheets used in manufacturing of final products. They filed 3 refund claims as per the provisions of Rule 5 of Cenvat credit Rules, 2002. The adjudicating authority after conducting verification and after granting personal hearing, sectioned the refund claims reducing the amount of refund on the basis of standard inputs output norms (SION) fixed by DGFT. The adjudicating authority also reduced the refund claim for the amount of duty that may be involved in the waste and scrap generated in the factory of the appellant during the manufacture of final....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rap are not goods and are not marketable does not have any force as the Stainless Steel Scrap is commercially a distinct product known in the trade parlance and is bought and sold in the normal course of trade. It is mainly used for the manufacture of Stainless Steel by recycling and remelting. In this regard I rely on the judgement of the Hon#ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Kandelwal Metal and Engineering Works & Anr Vs. Union of India & Ors. 1985 (6) ECC 142 (SC) wherein brass scrap produced during the manufacture of brass goods were considered to be liable to Excise and I therefore hold that the Stainless Steel Scrap is an excisable commodity. I further find that the letter of the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, De....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed order for adopting the IO Norms fixed by the DGFT in the absence of any specific IO Norms got fixed by the appellants specifically for their products. 8. It can be seen that provisions of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 was not considered by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) or by the adjudicating authority in the proper perspective as the said Rule 5 does not contemplate the reduction of the refund claim of an amount of credit availed and lying in the balance and which could not be utilised for home clearance, subject to the conditions that the goods are exported and the appellants follows the procedure laid down. It is not disputed in this cases that the appellants herein had followed the proper procedure for filing of the refu....