TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 694
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n law, the scrap generated during the manufacture of exempted goods, is liable to payment of central excise duty, even when the CENVAT Credit was not availed on the said goods ? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the the Showcause Notice invoking the proviso to Sec.11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, is within limitation ? (d) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the invocation of proviso to Sec.11A was justified, when the Department has knowledge of the clearances made by the Appellant and issued Showcause Notice in the year 1998 and which was ultimately dropped by Commissioner (Appeals) at that time in the earlier proceedings ? (e) Whether in the facts and circumstances of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....UESTION: (a) Whether the judgment and order of the Appellate Tribunal is perverse inasmuch as though a specific submission was made on the issue of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and on the issue of increase of penalty by the Adjudicating Authority by issuing a Corrigendum before the Appellate Tribunal, the same has not been dealt with by the Appellate Tribunal? 5. Considering the narrow controversy involved, we have taken up this Appeal for final disposal. 6. The Appellant which is a Cooperative Society is the manufacturer of sugar and molasses, etc. According to the case of the Appellant, it has a workshop where it is manufacturing excisable goods for the maintenance of machines installed in its factory. According to it, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... demand together with interest and allowed the Appeal of the Department by enhancing the penalty to an amount equal to the amount of duty. 7. The Appellate Tribunal was careful enough to note the specific submissions made by the Consultant appointed by the Appellant in Paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment. The first submission was that the waste and scrap generated in the factory premises was of old used obsolete machinery and a part of the quantity was generated during the course of repair and maintenance of the machinery. It was contended that the waste and scrap was not a manufactured product under Clause (f) of Section 2 of the said Act. The second contention was based on the demand issued on the basis of the audit objection after the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tribunal justified the invocation of Section 11AC of the said Act. We find it difficult to interfere with the said finding of fact. 9. However, we find that the other two contentions raised by the Appellant were not dealt with by the Appellate Tribunal. In the Appeal before this Court, we do not have benefit of the reasons recorded on the said two contentions as the Appellate Tribunal has not dealt with the same. As observed earlier, this omission on the part of the Appellate Tribunal raises substantial questions of law. Due to non consideration of the aforesaid two contentions, the impugned judgment and order of the Appellate Tribunal is vitiated, and therefore, there is no option but to pass an order of remand confined to the aforesaid t....