Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Pidilite Industries Ltd.

Commissioner of C. Ex. vs Pidilite Industries Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided May 12, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/39050

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/39050
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu
Decided On: May 12, 2005
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Respondent

Pidilite Industries Ltd.

Excerpt

.....refuse and relied upon the tribunal decision in the case preston v. cce, rajkot to order no warrant of modvat reversal. (i) tubes have been used for filling up final product on high speed machines and same tubes get damaged which are cleared as waste/scrap at rs. 45 per kg. (ii) damaged tubes are not accounted in rg-1 or in rt 12 or reported into the department. (iii) benefit of decision in m/s. syndet and chemical ind. ltd. is not available to the assessee since credit availed on tubes is not available for damage tubes. (iv) no further material of damage is required and it is established.(c) after hearing both sides and considering the material it is to be held that for damage and waste of inputs (tubes in this case) which is admittedly arising during the process of manufacture of the declared final product will not call for reversal of duty credit availed on aluminium tubes the declared inputs. the duty demands if any were required to be effected on the scrap and waste of aluminium without the reckoning the weight of the material filed in such damaged tubes as demand has to be on waste/scrap rate and under appropriate head that has not been done by the original authority, the demands interest and penalty consequences therefore cannot be upheld as arrived.(d) the ground taken by revenue does not in due to order recovery of credit availed on tubes.3. revenues appeal is consequently rejected. cross-objections also stands disposed off.

Full Judgment

1. After hearing both sides and considering that earlier a show cause notice was issued alleging clandestine non-duty paid removal of excisable goods in the Aluminium tubes found short and subsequent to the explanation given of these Aluminum Tubes having been removed as waste and scrap resulting due to wastage in manufacture and input credit having been availed, present notice proceedings of recovery of credit availed in such tubes were initiated.

(i) Damaged tubes were of no use/marketability and could not be classified as waste/scrap.

(iii) Damaged tubes were refuse and relied upon the Tribunal decision in the case Preston v. CCE, Rajkot to order no warrant of Modvat Reversal.

(i) Tubes have been used for filling up final product on high speed machines and same tubes get damaged which are cleared as Waste/Scrap at Rs. 45 per kg.

(ii) Damaged tubes are not accounted in RG-1 or in RT 12 or reported into the department.

(iii) Benefit of decision in M/s. Syndet and Chemical Ind. Ltd. is not available to the assessee since credit availed on tubes is not available for damage tubes.

(iv) No further material of damage is required and it is established.

(c) After hearing both sides and considering the material it is to be held that for damage and waste of inputs (Tubes in this case) which is admittedly arising during the process of manufacture of the declared final product will not call for reversal of duty credit availed on Aluminium tubes the declared inputs. The duty demands if any were required to be effected on the scrap and waste of Aluminium without the reckoning the weight of the material filed in such damaged tubes as demand has to be on waste/scrap rate and under appropriate head that has not been done by the original authority, the demands interest and penalty consequences therefore cannot be upheld as arrived.

(d) The ground taken by Revenue does not in due to order recovery of credit availed on Tubes.

3. Revenues appeal is consequently rejected. Cross-objections also stands disposed off.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of C. Ex. vs Pidilite Industries Ltd. Same Subject Excise Same Judge S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu