2017 (6) TMI 944

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gust 1997 and September 1997, the assessees have cleared 45.755 MTs of Waste Paper valued at Rs. 5,03,205/- under Rule 57F (4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the purpose of recycling / reprocessing of waste paper, by debiting 10% of the value of the goods, treating the same as partially processed goods. The appellant was issued with a SCN dt. 27.02.1998 proposing demand of Rs. 90,577/- being the duty involved @ 18% adv. on waste paper along with penal action on them. Pursuant to the Larger Bench, New Delhi deciding the case of Wyeth Laboratory Ltd. Vs CCE Mumbai [2000 (120) ELT 18 (Tri.-LB), the subject matter was decided by Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original No.1/2004 dated 28.10.2004 on the observation that Larger Bench, New....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ecycling is to be covered under the erstwhile Rule 57 F(4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 as has been done by the appellant or whether they are to be considered as clearance of waste on payment of duty under rule 57F (18). We find that the issue has been settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Wyeth Laboratory (supra), the Larger Bench held as follows :- "3. After considering the submissions made by both sides and the materials on records it is found :- ... ... ... (d) Commercial prudence and technological feasibility would induce a manufacturer to reconvert, reprocess, recondition and otherwise deal with intermediate goods, by-products, scrap, refuse, waste etc. to obtain maximum targeted produc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vat credit availers facilities i.e. on job work, provided job work procedures are followed, such movements would be permissible as long as the manufacturer availing the Modvat desires. Rule 57F(2) proviso itself provides that whatever cannot be processed any further on job work, under Rule 57F(2) would be 'waste'. Such waste would thereafter be dealt with as provided by Rule 57F(4). The rules do not impede the desire of the manufacturer to extract as much final product out of the inputs under Rule 57F(2) as possible or desired. The procedures under Rule could be 'aborted' and recourse taken to Rule 57F(4) at a stage, but only at the option of the assessee. The option to exercise the routes available between 57F(2) and 57F(4)....