2011 (6) TMI 431

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... DR for the Appellants Shri Mayank Garg, Advocate for the Respondent Per M. Veeraiyan: The appeal by the department is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 114-CE/ALLD/08 dated 27.11.08. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The respondents cleared certain waste and scrap of parts of machinery during the period September, 2005 to December, 2006 valued at Rs.27,10,821/-. A show caus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndents strongly supports the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. Show cause notice invoked Rules 4, 6, 8, 11 and 12 of Central Excise Rules, which relate to excisable goods manufactured by the assessee. At the same time, the show cause notice also alleges that the respondents have cleared waste and scrap arising from capit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aken. The learned DR relied on the decision of the Court in the case of Birla Corpn. Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur reported in [2011 (266) ELT 211 (Tri-Del)] particularly para 11 of the order. On perusal of said decision, it is noticed that the Tribunal has not held that scrap obtained by dismantling old/ damaged machinery as excisable goods. At the same time it also held that in the case of repair and mai....