2004 (8) TMI 266

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority, who confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 4,33,975/- with penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the respondents in respect of waste and scrap cleared by them during the period April to December, 2001. Whereas the second Appeal No. E/2122/2004-B has been preferred by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 16-1-2004 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority, who disallowed the claim of the respondents in their classification declaration, regarding benefit of Notification No. 89/95-C.E. dated 18-5-95 with a further direction to pay duty @ of 16% Ad valorem on the waste and scrap. 2. The issue in both ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....manufactured. In the instant case, the respondents had been, in the factory manufacturing excisable goods also when the waste and scrap, arose from the manufacture of exempted goods in that factory and as such at the time of clearance of that waste and scrap they could not claim benefit of the above notification for payment of duty thereon. The contention of the counsel that the respondents stopped manufacturing excisable goods later on and filed classification declaration which was prospective claiming exemption from payment of duty in respect of waste and scrap and as such benefit of the notification could not be denied to them, cannot be accepted for the reasons detailed above. The waste and scrap of the exempted goods had been cleared b....