2017 (12) TMI 1296

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri Amit Jain, Advocate for the Appellants Shri R K Mishra, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per: V. Padmanabhan: The appeal is filed against Order in Appeal No. 164-13-14 dated 16.12.2013. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of tractors and also parts of tractors. Tractors are exempted from whole of excise duty. For this purpose, various parts and components are bought out and us....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appellant who has manufactured the said rejected goods. However, at the level of Commissioner(A), the order was reversed and demand amounting to Rs. 35,55,946/ was confirmed. Aggrieved by the impugned order present appeal has been filed. 2. With the above background, heard Shri Amit Jain Advocate and R K Mishra AR for the parties. 3. The learned counsel submits that the demand is not susta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r use in the manufacture of tractors which are exempted from duty. Some of the components were found unfit or got damaged during the manufacturing process and have been cleared as waste and scrap. It is evident that damaged goods have not been manufactured by the appellant but were procured from outside after payment of duty. The section note 8(a) to section XV has no application to such goods. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellant has purchased duty paid paper and paperboard from the market. They are not the manufacturer of paper and paperboard and they are merely consumers of paper and paperboard. When they used such paper and paperboard for manufacture of empty boxes, some quantity of waste, scrap and parings of paper and paperboard has arisen. They had no intention to manufacture of scrap waste or paring. The ....