TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 340
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the period Oct 2001 to Feb 2002. In respect of the said material the appellant availed cenvat credit under the provisions of Rule 16(1) of Central Excise Rules after intimating to the department. Since the said material after converting into granules was not found fit for consumption or marketing, it was sold as waste and scrap, the same were cleared without any available price and in the form in which it was. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants on the ground that the goods returned were in waste and scrap condition and could not again be sent for manufacture of waste and scrap. Therefore in terms of Rule 16(2), the manufacturer was liable to reverse the actual amount of cenvat credit availed. On adjudication, the proper authorit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tice was barred by limitation. (d) The Commissioner (Appeals) also erred in ignoring the fact that the Chartered Engineer have certified that the rejected material was in the form of film and was at the time of receipt not as per the requirement of the customer and therefore only the same was rejected and returned. The said film, as such could not have been used for further manufacture of the article and therefore also the same was to be converted into granules and utilize for further manufacture of the final product. The conversion of film into granules was a technical requirement and therefore, the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) is improper and unjustified and is liable to be set aside. (e) The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same rejected goods but being plastic items suffered with atmospheric effect and could not get desired result. They had then, taken the opinion of Chartered Engineer who opined that rejected goods are not useful for consumption as such as well as for marketing for any application for plastic material for which it was made, and hence the only way to dispose off such rejected goods was to use it as scrap material. The appellant therefore, got the goods processed into waste and scrap (granules) from job worker M/s. Jyot Plastic Shaper and cleared such re-processed goods @ Rs. 5/- to Rs. 10/- per Kg. and paid the duty accordingly. The original adjudicating authority in his order has very categorically held that the process of conversion has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....E/1105 of 2009 and allowed the appeal. 5. The Tribunal in the case of CCE, Mumbai v. TATA SSL Limited - 2005 (191) E.L.T. 799 (Tri.-Mum.) held that; "what is ultimately cleared from the factory is scrap resulting out of further processing of rejected wire. At the time of clearance of scrap, an assessee is not required to reverse the credit taken when rejected wire is received back into the factory. It is enough, if an assessee pays duty on scrap based on its value. The differential duty worked out by the Revenue - credit amount minus duty paid on scrap - is not tenable. Thus on merits, the Revenue's plea does not stand." 6. On the question of limitation, we find that the extended period of limitation is not invokable in t....