BAGPAT COOPERATIVE SUGAR Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant engaged in the manufacture of V.P. sugar and molasses specified under Chapter 17 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. The appellant had been availing Cenvat credit on brass tubes as capital goods under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rule 1944. It has been alleged that the appellant had cleared/sold scrap of Brass Tubes which was generated out of capital goods on which the appellant had availed Modvat credit. As such, in terms of Rule 57AB(1) of Central Excise Rules 1944 and explanation appended thereto valid upto 1.4.2000 to 30.6.2001 read with Rule 3(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2001 and 2002, they were required to pay duty @ 16% Adv. on the scrap of brass tubes, which they failed to discharge and suppressed the fact.

(2.) THE ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant cleared old and used brass tubes (scrap) on 9.8.2001 for further conversion into tubes, when Cenvat Credit Rules 2001 were in force and therefore, demand of duty under Central Excise Rules 1944 cannot be sustainable. He further submits that it is obligatory upon the department to prove that the old and used unserviceable (brass tubes) scrap are manufactured goods and have been manufactured by the appellant. He also submits that in case duty would have been paid by the appellant, the consignee, to whom the goods were sent could avail Cenvat credit and in this process, there is no Revenue loss. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Diesel Components Works v. CCE Chandigarh and Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CCE .

(3.) THE ld. DR reiterated the findings the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that in this case the Revenue made allegation on the basis of specific evidences, which were not refuted by the appellant and, therefore the case law cited by the ld. Advocate are not applicable herein.