2013 (7) TMI 53

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....irst respondent was right in holding that it is not established that the impugned goods arose from any process of manufacture ? 2. Whether the first respondent was correct in denying the reliance placed by Revenue on note 8(a) of the Section XV of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as it has been clearly established that the impugned goods arose due to 'Mechanical Working' ? " 2. It is seen from the facts narrated that the assessee is a manufacturer of sugars and molasses. They have availed Cenvat credit on their capital goods. It was noted that metal scrap were generated out of scrapping of the capital goods (Machinery and components). The assessee cleared M.Tons of M.S./C.I.Scrap and M.S./C.I.Borrings valued at Rs.13,28,551/- witho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Credit Rules, 2002/2004. Based on Rule 3(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, the First Appellate Authority held that Rule 3(4) of the Rules as it stood at the relevant time made no provision on the reversal of credit or payment of duty by the manufacturer on the waste and scrap of the capital goods at the time of their clearance. Under Notification No.27/2005, Sub Rule 5A to Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was brought into effect from 16.05.2005. Thus duty liability would be applicable only from 16.05.2005. In the circumstances, the Appellate Authority held that when the scrap had not arisen out of manufacture, but arising on account of wear and tear in the absence of specific provision for such waste and scrap in the relevant rules, duty ....