CCE Vs. SUNDARAM CLAYTON LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is no representation for the respondents despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. In the circumstances, we are bent on disposing of this appeal of the year 1999. Accordingly, we have examined records and heard the learned SDR.

(2.) IT appears from the records that the respondents during the material period were engaged in the manufacture of aluminium profiles of Chapter 76 of the CETA Schedule. They purchased aluminium ingots and got them converted into aluminium alloy by job -workers under Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The alloy so manufactured was received back and used by the respondents in the manufacture of aluminium profiles. In the course of this process, aluminium waste (ash and residue) would arise. Since the party did not have the facility for recycling such waste, they sent it to job -workers for conversion into aluminium alloy. This dispatch was done under Rule 57F(2) challan. The original authority demanded duty on the above ash and residue weighing 4223 Kgs holding that any waste and scrap arising in the course of manufacture of final product should have been cleared on payment of duty under Rule 57F(4). The appeal filed by the party against this decision was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) following the Tribunal's decision in Chloride Industries Ltd. v. Collector . The appellate authority held that Rule 57F(4) was not applicable to the goods inasmuch as waste generated in the assessee's premises was sent to job -workers and the processed goods were returned. The present appeal of the department is against the appellate Commissioner's decision.

(3.) THE learned SDR reiterates the grounds of this appeal and relies on Board's Circular No. 2/93/CX -8 dated 12.1.93 wherein it was clarified that removal of waste and scrap from the factory of production was governed by the provisions of Rule 57F(4). After perusal of this Circular, it appears to us that the activity considered by the Board was removal, from the factory, of waste and scrap arising out of process of manufacture of final product. Removal of waste and scrap from the factory to the job -worker's premises for retrieving final product was not considered by the Board. In the present case, it is on record that ash and residue arising in the course of manufacture of profiles were removed under Rule 57F(2) for retrieving aluminium alloy which was returned to the assessee for use in the manufacture of profiles. Such clearance of waste and scrap was permissible under Rule 57F(2) as held by the Tribunal in the case of Chloride Industries v. Collector (supra). We find that, in the present appeal no attempt has been made by the appellant to distinguish the case of Chloride Industries (supra) from the case on hand.