TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (6) TMI 184
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....NJANEYULU (J), MEMBERS For the Appellant : M.A. Nyalkalkar, Adv. For the Respondent : U.H. Jadhav, JDR Order T. Anjaneyulu, Member (J) 1. These appeals are filed against an Order dated 29-4-2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune. 2. The issue involved in the case is as to whether as per the provisions of Rule 57AC(5)(a), the appellants are liable to pay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rrying out machining operations. 4. During the course of machining operations, scrap is generated. The said scrap is of two types i.e. - (a) Recoverable scrap; and (b) Non-recoverable scrap. The recoverable scrap can be collected and can be sold in the market at some price. However, the non-recoverable scrap is nothing but dust/very fine particles of metal, which is not col....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amounting to Rs. 1,57,431/- for the period from 1998-99 to 2002-03 (up to September, 2002) should not be demanded and recovered from the appellants under the provisions of Rule 57-I as amended by Rule 57AH of the Central Excise Rules, 1999 and Rules 12 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001, read with Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (ii) Interest under Section 11AB of the Act sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Pune. 9. During the course of personal hearing, the appellants were directed to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 1,12,146/- through PLA. Accordingly, the amount was deposited. 10. The Commissioner (Appeals) after hearing the parties upheld the Order-in-Original. Hence this appeal. 11. The appellants contend that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the vital fact that nowhere in R....