1983 (12) TMI 291

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....shpande, Advocate, for the Appellants. Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, S.D.R., for the Respondent. ORDER Question for decision in this appeal is whether in the case of the appellants who are permitted to follow Rule 56A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short the rules) procedure demand of duty for the period 1-11-1980 to 28-2-1981 on waste recycled as raw material for manufacture of Aluminium ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., SDR for the respondent stated that for the appeal and sake of argument he would concede that Rules 9 and 49 would not be applicable in case of a manufacturer following Rule 56A procedure but he argued that this did not affect the excisability of waste and scrap which incurred this liability as soon as they arose in the process of manufacture of finished product Aluminium Extrusions. He also argu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the factory, are themselves clear that these explanations are for the purposes of Rules 9 and 49 only. They cannot be used to interpret the meaning of word "removed" used in Rule 56A(3)(iv)(a) of the Rules. 6. We do not agree with the reasoning of the Collector (Appeals) that because Notification 34/81, dated 1-3-1981 exempted scrap and waste, earlier they must have been chargeable to duty....