GUNNAM SUBBARAO INVESTMENTS PVT. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellant is required to pay duty on the 'waste and scrap' arising in the manufacture of the final goods, which were exempted, from payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 14/92. The appellants' contention is that they have taken credit of the duty paid on the inputs. Therefore, they stated that when the 'waste and scrap' of plastics is obtained during the manufacture of excisable goods, they are not required to pay duty on that when the same is cleared. However, both the authorities have taken a view that waste and scrap of plastics obtained during the manufacture of excisable goods is required to discharge duty. The learned Advocate files the following list of citations in her favour.

(2.) IN all these citations, the ratio is that the 'waste and scrap' which is generated while manufacturing the final product and cleared while taking the benefit of Notification is not required to pay duty irrespective of the fact as to whether the party has taken modvat credit or not. In the case of MFR Ltd. v. CCE, the Bench has noted that the waste has arisen out of the process of manufacture in terms of Rule 57F(1)(ii). It has also noted that the waste was within the ambit of Rule 57D. The Board itself has clarified that the raw materials and component parts on which proforma credit has been taken under Rule 57A could not be treated as non -duty paid in character. Therefore, it held that the benefit of the Notification was available. The Tribunal relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Metrosyl v. Collector and that of Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company v. Collector .

(3.) LEARNED DR relied on the judgment rendered in the case of CCE, Bangalore v. Gunnam Subbarao Investments (P) Ltd. which was decided by Final Order No. 1533/96 dated 16.8.1996 ,