ARHAM PLASTICS LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) has found that appellants had sent the goods for job worker including waste and scrap of plastic during the period 1.11.96 to 3.1.97 without payment of duty. Appellants had contended before him that the removals were made after complying the provisions of Rule 57F(3) and they had received back from the job worker reconditioned material and all the movements were within the knowledge of the department and Rule 57F(5) will come into play only when the material is cleared for home consumption and in the present case, the material was not sent for home consumption but was sent only for reconditioning and returned to their premises for further manufacture. The Commissioner after considering the matter, held that the issue was in the present case whether Rule 57F(5) or 57F(3) is to be followed and whether duty was to be paid as confirmed by the Asstt. Commissioner or not and found that Rule 57F(5) had become mandatory as scraps were liable to pay duty when they are cleared from the factory. In the circumstances, when the goods were sent to job worker for manufacture out of scrap/granules, Rule 57F(3) could not be adopted as Rule 57F(3) will apply only to such inputs which are declared by the assessee under Rule 57A or partially processed inputs. In the present case, waste and scrap of plastic was not a declared input but incidentally manufactured by -product and therefore he agreed with AC's finding that CEGAT' S decision in the case of Chloride Industries Ltd. was based on a situation which prevailed at a time prior to amendment brought about by Notification No. 11/96 -CE(NT) dated 23.7.96 which was made effected from 1.9.96 and since scrap had become dutiable, the question whether defective goods could be final product or not did not arise.

(2.) WHEN the case was called for hearing today, Shri Shankar, Excise -Incharge of the company appeared, and reiterated the grounds in the appeal and submitted that their Consultant was not well and sought an adjournment.

(3.) WE find that the matter has already been adjourned three times and since was find that the matter is covered, we proceed to decide the issue.