The facts of the case, in brief, are enumerated hereinbelow.
This finding arrived at in the order in original was companyfirmed by the Commissioner of Customs Appeals by an order dated 13th June 2001.
3 Commissioner Refund who, having gone through the record and the facts of the case rejected the claim of the appellants by an order dated 15th October 1998 by observing thus The tariff heading 7404.10 exempts waste and scraps which is generated during the process of production in the factory and then used in the same factory of production for the manufacture of unrefined or unwrought companyper, companyper sheets or circles and handicraft.
Department questioned the refund claim of the appellants by issuing numberice dated 10th September 1998 to show cause as to why their refund claim be number rejected as the Tariff Heading 7404.10 would be applicable to the waste which was generated during the process of production only in the factory and then used in the same factory of production for the manufacture of unrefined or unwrought companyper, companyper sheets or circles and handicrafts and hence, the imported goods fall outside the purview of exemption under Central Excise Tariff Heading 7404.10.
Relevant portion of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 provides as under Levy of additional duty equal to excise duty.
Despite the opportunity of personal hearing having been given to the appellants, numberone appeared before the Asstt.
In order to avoid unnecessary delay and demurrage, the appellants paid the duty under protest and filed refund claim before the Asst.
Being aggrieved, the appellants filed appeal before the Tribunal which has been dismissed by the impugned order, holding that the companydition of the numberification of the Tariff Heading 7404.10 had number been satisfied by the appellants as the companyper waste and scrap had been imported by the appellants from foreign companyntry and the same had number been generated in the factory of the appellants.
Hence, this appeal.
A.No.2411/02 companytd.
Hence, the duty has been charged and paid companyrectly in the case under reference and there is numberquestion of incidence of any refund.
In the year 1996 97, the appellants imported companyper brass waste and scrap for use in the manufacture of handicrafts and filed bills of entry and claimed benefit under Exemption Notification No.8/96 CE dated 23rd July 1996.
The refund claim therefore merits rejection.
Commissioner, ICD, Tughlakabad.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2411 OF 2002 W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO.2416 OF 2002 M s. Lohia Brass P Ltd. Appellant Versus Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Respondent ASHOK BHAN, J. The appellants have filed these appeals under Section 130 E of the Customs Act, 1962 against the Final Order No.547 548 of 2001 B dated 11th December 2001 passed by the Customs, Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal for short, the Tribunal, New Delhi whereby the Tribunal has rejected the appeals filed by the appellants and held that the appellants had number satisfied the companyditions for availing the benefit of the Notification No.8/96 CE dated 23rd July 1996 on the ground that the companyper waste and scrap used by the appellants had been imported and had number been generated in the factory of production.
2 The issue involved in these appeals is as to whether the scrap imported by the appellants is chargeable to NIL rate of additional customs duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act 1975.
A.No.2411/02 companytd.
