VASAVADATTA CEMENT Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER hearing for some time with reference to the stay petition filed by the party, we felt that the matter itself can be disposed of on the limited issue. Accordingly amount required to be deposited for the purpose of hearing the appeal is dispensed with and the appeal was taken up for regular hearing with the consent of both sides.

(2.) THE short point to be considered in this appeal is whether the waste and scrap of refractory material is excisable or not. It was submitted by the Authorised Representative for the appellants that the item as such was not mentioned in any tariff entry and accordingly it is not excisable. The department was of the view that the item is classifiable under Chapter 69.

(3.) ON a careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides with reference to the facts and on perusal of records we find that the Department proceeded to charge the duty on the item in question on the ground that it falls under Chapter 69. To charge duty on an item the item should not only be dutiable but it should be specified under correct heading. It cannot be said that broadly the item falls under Chapter 69. There is force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee that item as such was not mentioned in Chapter 69. Since it is not specified under which sub -heading of the Chapter 69 the item falls, we do not find any justification to levy the duty on the item in question. In view of our foregoing conclusion, the item as such is not excisable and accordingly appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any.